This message from Sammyboy.com's Alfresco Coffee Shop on DelphiForums.com was
forwarded to you.

You can view it in the context of the entire discussion by going to:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages/?msg=33445.1

Singapore's new and growing disenchanted breed of educated paupers.....
With soaring unemployment rates, many graduates are graduating into
unemployment.

We share the fustrations of an "educated poor" below.

=======================Forwarded Message=======================

Forum:    the Sammyboy.com's Alfresco Coffee Shop Forum
Subject:  The New Educated Poor
From:      (MAXSIN)
DateTime: 31/08/2003 03:53:49

I have always wondered when will I ever find some sociologists coining a new
term for people that falls into my bracket:

1. Have a tertiary education.

2. Holding an executive job that is way underpaid.

3. Don't qualify for any govt assistance.

4. Income level that falls in the lower 2k range

5. Too rich to be starved to death

6. Too poor to consider getting married and start a family of my own.

7. Basically lost and clueless about what lies ahead of me.

8. Come too far and spend too much time and money on education to consider
taking off the tie and put on an apron to sell chicken rice.

9. With parents still healthy and around, I am grounded in Singapore. Even if I
can bear to uproot myself and go elsewhere, I do not know how to.

I think I am poor.  While I may not starve to death, I do not have a life.  I
work more than 60 hours a week and I go back home every weekend worrying about
job security. Half the guys over my side are either FT or Malaysians and they
are considered better employees - FT being more 'talented' and Malaysians being
more 'loyal' and less inclined to complain. I know I am capable of much more
but I don't get a chance to prove myself.

Marriage is a pipe dream for now because I can't afford it. And there is my
education debt to repay back and my family to support.

I basically can't plan anything for myself. I do not know how much longer I can
bear with it.

Sometimes I just wonder what did I really work so hard for all these years.

=================================================
DelphiForums.com: Home to the Web's most vibrant
online communities. Explore more than 100,000 Forums
or create your own at http://www.delphiforums.com
=================================================

I refer to Chua Mui Hoong's article, "The $1.3b
diamond ring to woo investors" (Straits Times, 29 Aug
2003), attached below.

While I agree with her that "capital is footloose and
fancy-free" and can move to where costs are lowest, I
cannot accept her contention that "there is nothing
governments can do to keep investors committed to
their countries. As it is, the workers, having
sacrificed the wage and CPF cuts, are rightfully
wondering "why it is their money that has been used to
buy that ring". On employers/investors' part, while it
is not realistic to expect them to commit their
presence here indefinitely, but given the right
"incentives" (measures that help them lower the cost
of doing business here), they may be willing to commit
staying put here for a number of years, long enough
for them to recover their investment and some profits.
In this regard, there is much the government can do to
not only bring in new investments (thus creating jobs
for the unemployed) but also help prevent companies
already here to remain here (thus preventing loss of
jobs to lower cost countries). This is what tripartite
roles and responsibilities are all about, an ideology
to which all workers, employers and the government
subscribe.

What more can the government do, having already cut
income and corporate taxes to the extent of incurring
a budget deficit of some $3 billion for the 6 months
ended June 2003? For a start, it can waive (or
continue to extend for those already enjoying such tax
breaks) corporate tax for 10 or 15 years (or for as
long as they commit their presence here?) for those
MNCs that employ say, more than 1000 or any
"substantial" number of workers (like it or not, we
still need those MNCs that set up manufacturing plants
here to provide mass employment to Singaporeans,
albeit for higher value products).

For wage cost, the government can set up a fund to
"subsidise" (or "reverse levy?" coined by Mr Tan Kim
Lian of NTUC Income) Singaporeans employed by these
companies (say $300 each, or more - $400 each? - for
older Singaporeans). Coupled with employees' wage and
CPF cuts, this subsidy will go a long way in making
Singaporeans' pay more competitive, although it may
still not match the salaries of the workers in China
or India. So, for every 10,000 Singaporeans so
employed and subsidised, the government will need to
set aside some $3-4 million annually, a small price to
pay for keeping tens of thousands of Singaporeans
gainfully employed.

As for rental cost, the government, through its
ownership of some 90% of land in Singapore, certainly
can afford to rent out land for a song (or even for
free) during the committed period, now that they have
so much excess and under-utilised land and office
space in the market. Since these properties are not
earning any income anyway, there is no real loss (per
haps only opportunity cost) to the government.

With the government already running budget deficits,
the expected prolonged decrease in revenue (through
tax waivers) to government coffers will have to be
funded through either increasing other taxes (like GST
or other "sin" taxes) or reducing budgetary
expenditure (salaries or capital expenditure) or both.
Of course, increasing GST (which the government will
proceed) will eat into the workers' pay further, but
I'm sure workers would rather have a job than paying
an additional 1% in GST.

-----------------------------------------------------

AUG 29, 2003
Our Columnist
The $1.3b diamond ring to woo investors
By Chua Mui Hoong

Workers who feel the pinch of the cuts may wonder why
it is their money that has been used to buy that ring.
And after paying for the ring, will there be a wedding
- will the investments and jobs come?

MR ANG Mong Seng met his grassroots leaders on
Wednesday night, discussing the impending cuts to the
Central Provident Fund.

They told him: 'Jin cham', which is Hokkien for 'we're
in a really pitiful state', or as American
colloquialism will put it, 'this sucks'.

Yesterday afternoon, he rang them to get their quick
reactions to the announcement of a 3-percentage-point
cut in CPF contributions from October. 'Heng ah', they
said, which is Hokkien for 'phew, what a lucky break'.
You could almost hear their sigh of relief as Mr Ang
(Hong Kah GRC) recounted the story in Parliament.

Indeed, the announcement of sweeping changes to the
CPF system yesterday came almost as an anti-climax.

Workers had braced themselves for the worst, after
hearing Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong say in his
National Day Rally speech that CPF rates may go down
to 'as low as 30 per cent', from 36 per cent now.

Other ministers chipped in over the last two weeks,
arguing that any cuts in CPF should be done
immediately, and painting a picture of Singapore's
costs getting out of whack with that of its regional
competitors.

Anxiety levels have risen so high that for those who
have followed reports of the impending cuts, the final
3-percentage-point cut comes across almost as a
concession. Almost.

This was reflected in the tone of MPs' speeches, which
was notably subdued. At least two - unionist and
Nominated MP Nithiah Nandan and NMP Fang Ai Lian -
thanked the Government for cutting the CPF, or at
least, for not implementing higher cuts and for the
long 10-year phasing-in period for changes to rules
for withdrawing CPF balances at age 55.

But any short-term feelings of relief will disappear
once workers absorb the news and start to do their
sums. Then the reality will bite.

Consider the numbers: 577,000 people use the CPF to
pay housing mortgages, with 221,000 using up all the
balance in their Ordinary Accounts for monthly
repayments.

These people will feel the pinch of topping up
mortgage payments with cash. Although the sums will be
manageable for most, sizeable numbers will feel the
pinch, especially those already suffering earlier wage
cuts or retrenchments. They will expect help when
Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announces
details of the assistance package today.

While workers will feel the pain in the short-term,
the real impact of the changes announced yesterday are
much longer term in nature.

For one, they send a signal to investors that
Singapore's wages and labour market conditions are
flexible and responsive to competition.

The real value of the CPF cut goes far beyond the $1.3
billion annual boon to companies. Rather, the cut
tells investors, especially those looking at long-term
commitments, that this country is serious about wooing
investors.

You could consider the CPF cut a $1.3 billion
engagement ring from Singapore to investors: When a
man offers a woman an engagement ring, neither party
is focused on the monetary value of the ring, but
holding out the promise of a long-term commitment.

Workers who feel the pinch of the cuts may wonder why
it is their money that has been used to buy that ring.
And after paying for the ring, will there be a wedding
- will the investments and jobs come?

Union leader Heng Chee How (Jalan Besar GRC) argued
persuasively that the CPF cuts were workers'
investment in their collective security and prospects.


Workers have taken the cut, and it is now up to
employers to do their part. What are employers doing
to restructure costs? To seize new opportunities? To
expand business with the cost-savings?

Mr Heng's speech underscores the reality that it is
workers who have borne the brunt of the wage
restructuring. Workers accept the changes - but expect
commitments from the Government to trim other costs,
and from employers to use the cost-savings to save or
create jobs.

In other words, they want a quid pro quo arrangement:
Cut CPF OK, but save jobs.

And therein lies the rub.

For the reality is that there is nothing to ensure
that the CPF cuts will translate into job gains.
Rather, the logic works the other way round:
Maintaining overly high wages is a surefire way to
send companies scurrying out of the country.

For capital is footloose and fancy-free. It moves to
where costs are lowest.

There is nothing governments can do to keep investors
committed to their country. Even after accepting that
$1.3 billion diamond ring, companies can still break
their commitment.

This is the harsh reality.

What can workers do? Try their darndest to be such a
good bride the groom stays put with her.

E-mail: muihoong@...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright @ 2003 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights
reserved.





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Singapore Speakers' Corner Older And Quieter After 3 Yrs
1 Sep 2003

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

SINGAPORE (AP)--When Singapore's Speakers' Corner opened, many hailed
it as a victory for free speech in this tightly controlled city-
state - but on its third anniversary, the voices are growing fainter.

The number of people airing their views at the government-approved
free speech venue fell to 177 last year from 365 two years ago,
police spokeswoman Rachel Yeo said Monday.

Speaker's Corner is loosely based on its historic, freewheeling
namesake at London's Hyde Park, where virtually anything goes.

But in Singapore - where some call their local version "Hide Park" -
it's a different story.

Race, religion, and other topics that authorities deem sensitive are
banned at Singapore's corner, which is marked by a sign in part of a
small downtown park.

Loudspeakers are also outlawed, and speakers must register their
names with police before holding forth. Traffic sometimes makes it
hard to hear, and the corner is only open in the daytime, when
relentless equatorial sun or monsoon rains beat down on Singapore.

Activists have been urging opposition politicians and civic groups to
show up and speak out to mark the anniversary.

But Yeo said just four people registered to speak Monday.

Many opposition politicians dismiss Singapore's Speakers' Corner as a
cosmetic attempt to create the appearance of freedom in a country
where political activities and the media are strictly regulated and
where top leaders have often successfully sued their critics for
defamation.

"Why commemorate such a sham and a fraud?" said local opposition
leader Chee Soon Juan. "I don't think there will be a lot of people
there. It wouldn't be productive or meaningful."

In 2002, Chee was fined 3,000 Singapore dollars (US$1=S$1.7546) for
speaking about banned topics - race and religion - at Speakers'
Corner.

He has not returned since.

Singapore leaders say their strict policies help maintain the social
and political stability that have made Singapore one of Asia's safest
and wealthiest countries.

-Edited by Karen K. Lane

Updated September 1, 2003 4:22 a.m.

S&P: Private home prices likely to fall

The move to reduce CPF contribution rates is likely to slash private
home prices by another five to 10 per cent in the next one year to 18
months, according to credit rating agency Standard and Poor's (S&P).
.
However, the Business Times reported yesterday that despite the CPF
changes, there was continued interest in new launches.
.
Showflats for existing projects did no see much activity over the
weekend, but newer developments like the Quintet executive condo in
Choa Chu Kang and the freehold District 9 condo Imperial drew
considerable visitors to their showflats, the BT reported.
.
The first weekend after the Ghosts Month is typically a time when
homebuyers rush to check out showflats.
The move to reduce CPF contribution rates is likely to slash private
home prices by another five to 10 per cent in the next one year to 18
months, according to credit rating agency Standard and Poor's (S&P).
.
However, the Business Times reported yesterday that despite the CPF
changes, there was continued interest in new launches.
.
Showflats for existing projects did no see much activity over the
weekend, but newer developments like the Quintet executive condo in
Choa Chu Kang and the freehold District 9 condo Imperial drew
considerable visitors to their showflats, the BT reported.
.
The first weekend after the Ghosts Month is typically a time when
homebuyers rush to check out showflats.

The entrepreneurship hype. Who benefits?
29 August 2003
Young Democrats, SDP

http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/news_display.php?id=333

"It's the Remaking Singapore season," declares political columinist
Chua Lee Hoong in her latest commentary. Indeed, no Remaking
Singapore talk will be complete without hawking the current buzzword -
  entrepreneurship. The future of Singapore's economy, says the PAP
leaders, will be sustained through the creation of an entrepreneurial
culture.

Not surprising, therefore, that another senior Straits Times' writer
has also come to champion the entrepreneur. In his article, "SIA
should leave budget airline to the entrepreneurs," Andy Ho argues
that SIA's "full service culture which charges premium prices" is not
suited to run a low-cost, no-frills discount airline. "Successful
discount airlines," he added, "have all been set up by private
entrepreneurs who infuse them with distinctive cultures."

A day after Mr Ho's column, the same newspaper reported that a group
of entrepreneurs have registered a private limited company and are
planning to set up a budget airline. Wow! Entrepreneurship must be
really taking off in Singapore, you would think.

Well, not really. Sources indicate that the group is led by former
Singapore Airlines deputy chairman Lim Chin Beng, who is now the non-
executive chairman of, you guessed it, Singapore Press Holdings. Mr
Lim joined SIA's forerunner Malayan Airlines in 1960 and had served
on Singapore Airline's board after its inception until 1996. In other
words, the 70-year-old is a GLC veteran.

Here's where the definition of "entrepreneur" in the Singaporean
context gets a little interesting. In an economy dominated by GLCs,
where are the big-time entrepreneurs likely to come from? You don't
need to be an expert to figure out that most of Singapore's potential
entrepreneurs will emerged from the ranks of GLCs. They certainly
have industry knowledge, finances and the know-how to negotiate
government contracts.

The push for entrepreneurship is not new. In January of 1993, SM Lee
Kuan Yew warned that Singapore will be a "failed NIE" if people do
not dare to venture abroad to build an external economy that will add
to the GNP. He argued that "to succeed, Singapore must sprout a
second wing - go abroad, encourage entrepreneurship, risk taking."

When Lee Kuan Yew calls for action, one can be sure that there will
be action. What followed from his speech was that instead of the
private sector taking the lead, the GIC started to pump billions of
dollars in overseas investments. The Suzhou Industrial Park fiasco
soon became a sobering reminder of the risks that SM Lee himself
talked about. At the same time, GLCs became even more entrenched than
ever.

Now, 10 years later, his son DPM Lee Hsien Loong repeats the same
call – "we have launched a major exercise to remake the Singapore
economy. We must become more willing to take risks and more
entrepreneurial." (Straits Times, June 7, 2003)

With no sign of the PAP government relinquishing its role as major
stakeholder in GLCs, the impending outcome of this new call for
entrepreneurship will be a repeat of SM Lee's call in 1993 – expect
to see more Lim Chin Bengs in the future.

One Internet forumner predicts, "All this entrepreneur talk will lead
to more and more MIW (Men In White) venturing into the private
sector - buying over existing companies and starting new ones. I
venture that in ten years time, the line between GLCs and private
sector will be blurred. Private sector will be run by board of
directors comprising of MIW types . When that happens, PAP's control
of the Singapore economy will be complete."

The current quest for entrepreneurship is also being echoed in the
remaking of the education system, or at least, this is what SM Lee
would like us to believe: "We have to remake ourselves, have a more
entrepreneurial bent in our society, and shift our education system
to produce a different kind of worker." (Straits Times, May 12, 2003)

Reality, however, is something else: "Taking over the education
portfolio from a former navy man, new acting Minister Tharman
Shanmugaratnam knows he inherits a tight ship and does not plan any
major course changes. There will be no fundamental re-orientation or
revamp." (Straits Times, Apr 29,2003)

How now, Mr Lee? You want entrepreneurial culture but your Education
Minister is not willing to reform the education system? So with no
corresponding revamp in education, what does all this
entrepreneurship babble mean for the rest of us?

Our poor PM Goh Chok Tong, seemingly oblivious to the big picture, is
now tasked with picking role models for this new entrepreneurial
drive. He made this astonishing remark in Streats (Mar 7, 2003): "I
saw in the papers that there was this graduate frying some "gao luk"
(roasted chestnuts). This is what I mean by showing enterprise; doing
things on your own." When the Prime Minister of a "First World"
nation begins to champion unemployed graduates who has to take to
selling chestnuts on the streets, we must be in deep trouble.

If PM Goh had a clearer memory, he would have recalled that in our
early years of nation-building, we had entrepreneurship in abundance.
People sold "gao luk" on the streets regardless if their prime
minister thinks it's the right thing to do or not.

Another Internet forumner, Bart, summed it up "During the 60s, 70s
and 80s, entrepreneurship was thriving in Singapore. There were
countless bus companies, many banks, many shipyards, many textile
firms, etc, etc, and many people went into businesses, trying to
create wealth. However, somewhere along the way, SM Lee Kuan Yew
didn't like the free-wheeling and chaotic culture that sprang up.

"As a result, many unfair rules were created to compete against the
small entrepreneurs - business area re-created or re-zoned, more tax
& fine are imposed, hawkers cleared off the roads, etc. Until one
day, all the padded-up regulations become so layered that peeling
those layers are like undoing a onion - it bring tears to the peeler
and those standing nearby.

"Finally, Singaporeans realised the government is against `free-
wheeling' business culture and decided not to enter business and just
let the government do everything. Then the kiasu, kiasi and kia-
everything crept up on all Singaporeans. Now PAP thinks that there
are too few entrepreneurs in Singapore when they should be asking
themselves `Why is that so?'"

In an Amazon review of Lee Kuan Yew's From Third World To First, a
reader from Beijing noted, "One achievement he forgets to mention is
that Singapore has achieved the seemingly impossible: it's made
Chinese people lose their entrepreneurial spirit."

After spending considerable energy in virtually strangling the
entrepreneurial spirit out of Singaporeans, does Lee Kuan Yew really
want to recapture the glory days of free-wheeling enterprise?
Remember that in 1993, he made the call for more entrepreneurs and
risk-taking. Ten years later, he repeats the rhetoric. Two obvious
conclusions can be drawn - either the 1993 call has failed or that it
has worked tremendously well to keep the PAP in power and he wants
more of the same.

Parting shot from Bart: "You need a very creative environment to
nurture entrepreneurs. In a strict country like Singapore, it's very
difficult. You can even say it's a bit too late. Until there's
political reform in Singapore politics, I doubt they will turn out
anymore real entrepreneurs."

Adds another forumner, KS: "The PAP Government is holding
Singaporeans ransom because they control the economy. You vote the
PAP out, many of you will lose your rice-bowl."

Ominous? You better believe it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Financial Times
29 Aug 2003

"I'm not sure that it (CPF cuts) will change the equation all that much.
Singapore is losing jobs because its main industries - electronics,
finance and tourism - are all suffering a global downturn," said Paul
Schymyck, an economist with consultancy IDEAglobal.

"One big beneficiary of reduced CPF rates will be state-owned
companies, including Singapore Airlines, DBS Bank and SingTel, that
are the biggest employers in the city-state."

The below article is an excerpt from Economic Crisis and the
Prospects for Democratisation in Southeast Asia

http://menj.tripod.com/Pejuang_Bangsa/PAP-corrupt.htm

The Singapore PAP Government Corruption

Even the supposedly corruption free island republic of Singapore has
not escaped the taint of corruption. In 1996, Senior Minister Lee
Kuan Yew and son Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong admitted to
receiving discounts on purchases of luxury apartments from a publicly
listed company Hotel Property Ltd (HPL) where Lee Kuan Yew's younger
brother is one of the Directors. Lee and son, with the support of
Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, were not reprimanded for the 12%
discounts when purchasing the HPL properties. The government had
apparently accepted their argument that as they did not solicit the
discounts and were somehow unaware that they did received the
discounts, even though it collectively amounted to more than
S$1,000,000, they had therefore not wilfully acted improperly.
Suffice it to say, in more transparent, accountable and vigorous
democracies, public officials have been known to resign for less
serious corruption allegations.

As the assets of public officials do not have to be made public in
Singapore, speculation and rumour-mongering remains rife about the
previous discounts attained by PAP politicians and the extent of
assets accumulated by them while in public office. To placate the
strong undercurrent of public disquiet with PAP politicians acquiring
property at discounted prices, Prime Minister Goh has required
Ministers to provide detailed information on their ties with the
developer and whether any discounts, special terms or treatment` was
received before they and immediate family members purchase
properties. Long before the HPL affair, public disquiet with the
financial remuneration of PAP politicians were fuelled by their
generous salaries which easily surpass their counterparts in
industrialised countries like Japan and the United States. Lee Kuan
Yew justified their generous salaries as a means of minimising the
otherwise strong temptation to engage in corrupt activities. Argued
Lee, "Pay political leaders the top salaries that they deserve and
get honest, clear government or underpay them and risk the Third
World disease of corruption."

In an attempt to squash public criticism of Ministerial salaries, the
government released a 1994 White Paper entitled "Competitive Salaries
for Competent and Honest Government" which recommended that the
salary of ministers be pegged at two-thirds the average mean income
of the highest paid professions.70 The logic behind the pegging of
ministerial salaries to corporate high-flyers was that this was the
most effective way of attracting the talented to public office.
Instructively, arguments pertaining to the importance of politicians
possessing a strong commitment and duty to public service, ironically
a Confucian junzi trait the PAP leadership have in the past
attributed to themselves," was not highlighted in the White Paper.
That PAP politicians have to be paid salaries that supersede their
political counterparts in Japan or the United States in order to
entice them into public office and prevent them from succumbing to
the "disease of corruption" is in itself an indictment of the calibre
and commitment of PAP politicians.

The Optical
2 Sep 2003

In a Business Times report today (2 Sept 2003) entitled "Make CPF
voluntary, or scrap it: MPs," apart from the larger issue of either
making the CPF voluntary or scrap it, BT reported that PAP MP (West
Coast) Ho Geok Choo "said professionals, managers, executives and
technicians (PMETS) seem to have been forgotten in the current CPF
debate. 'The relief package is clear on schemes such as WAP (Worker
Assistance Programme) to assist the lower-income group but silent on
its eligibility for PMETs in a similar plight as the lower income
group.

She reminded the House that older PMETS are, for the first time,
among the hardest hit by lay-offs. 'By and large, the above-40s PMETs
are the ones who would be financially squeezed with the prospect of
no or lesser CPF contributions to service their mortgages and other
mid-life commitments,' Madam Ho said.

The government should take a second look and see how it can help
these 'new poor of Singapore', she pleaded."

That last phrase "new poor of Singapore" by the PAP MP is rather
catchy and appropriate but the fact is Ms Choo has misappropriated it
from The Workers' Party.

TheOptical has reproduced the full article titled New Poor by James
Gomez, 2nd Assistant Secretary-General of The Workers' Party, which
appeared in the party's Issue 1, 2001 newsletter HAMMER.

The other reason why it's being reproduced here in full is that Ms
Choo used this "stolen" phrase giving it a very narrow definition but
the original piece by Gomez has identified The New Poor as a
phenomenon which has engulfed all sectors of the population. -
TheOptical

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------

In the current economic restructing and downturn, a tier of "new
poor" has emerged. Housing mortgages and, health costs are just some
of the problems. James Gomez finds out.

They are the New Poor - urban, made up of the unskilled, a sizeable
middle-class, fresh graduates and the consumption oriented.

Collectively, they live and work with no guarantee of life-long
employment but are responsible for multiple long-term financial
obligations ("forced" or otherwise) in an environment that provides
no short-term unemployment benefits.

Singapore Dream in Smoke

In Singapore, the new knowledge-based economy means that many of our
unskilled and semi-skilled workers, especially those in their forties
who still have families to support are becoming "redundant" unless
they retrain, upgrade their skills and use information technology.
The sad aspect is that the PAP government does not understand that
even if they subsidized retraining programs, people still need hard
cash to stay alive. Many in this category have long mortgages (up to
30 years) for public housing and with upgrading, incurring additional
long-term payment expenses. Additionally, depending on income levels,
some take hire purchase loans for home appliances, TV, radio,
computers, and furniture. Many need health and life insurance
policies to supplement health care costs. Their children's education
is another important financial consideration. Further, the needs of
the elderly, if they have not provided for their retirement, falls on
the children – these forty-somethings. Legislation
  ensures that this becomes a legal obligation, added onto their other
outstanding financial commitments.

The "middle-class" which at times was portrayed as the "new rich" is
finding that a number of essentials like health care, housing and
education are becoming expensive and are cutting into their lifestyle
choices.

Having a maid to look after the children and their elderly parents is
more costly. In some cases, it's more cost-effective for one of the
spouses, usually the wife, to stay home. Suddenly, overseas travel,
country club memberships, aspirations for private property, liquid
cash for investment and stock speculation are becoming thin. A
maximum seven-year lease on a car is another burden for those who
chose to own one. Even the desire for overseas and further education
has become a liability for many. Parents and individuals have to take
personal and study loans to realize this wish.

Once the boon of the middle-class, the policies of the PAP are
increasingly narrowing their lifestyles choices or leaving them in
debt.

For the younger workers or fresh graduates, the recession not
withstanding, jobs are harder to come by. They have to settle for
less pay and work longer hours. But they have immediate needs - at
least a two-year package for hand phones. Then there are the other
expenses. Dining out, acquiring fashion labels, going on holidays,
owning a palmtop, buying CDs, books and magazines to name just a few
of the expense items. Credit is not an option. After all, if they
chalk up large bills on their cards that they cannot pay, they are
eventually made bankrupts. Even tertiary students explore credit for
overseas travel way before they join the work force. But there is no
guarantee that tertiary education locally or abroad translates
immediately into a job. Many graduates spend months, sometimes over a
year, looking for a full-time job. Others work temporarily in
between - if they can find something. Relief teaching and tuition is
a last resort.

And then there are those who pursue their material wants although
they cannot really afford them. They get into heavy financial
obligations and have problems managing them. For instance,
unnecessary and expensive housing renovation that has little value in
the high turns over resale HDB property market. Getting into
uninformed business ventures in a saturated government dominated
private sector that does not result in successful profit making or
taking large and unsecured speculative risks on the financial markets
that can leave one in a state of abrupt monetary scarcity.

The Worst is Yet to Come

The financial commitment elicited by the new economy is not matched
by a guarantee of life-long employment and financial security.

For those employed, the presence of personal savings may not be large
enough to cushion unexpected long term unemployment prospects. The
only option is to find stopgap measures of work such as being a
security guard, cleaner or taxi driver that will take them away from
their traditional area of skills and training to a saturated
unskilled employment market where there is competition with school
leavers, retirees and foreign workers.

For many past the working age, current savings in the Central
Provident Funds, if they have not been used up for public housing,
are not sufficient to pay for post-retirement expenses. The
government's advice is to sell their homes, move to a special
retirement flats and provide for themselves with the difference. It
does not matter if this is not applicable to all or that they have to
liquidate their homes to compensate for the inadequacy of their
Central Provident Funds. Even legislation calls on children to
provide for their elderly parents cannot work if the children cannot
afford it. Thus, although there are some who work to keep fit, it's
not unusual to see needy elderly people well into retirement age
working behind the counter at McDonalds, collecting discarded
cardboard boxes and minding the doorways to public toilets.

Part of the problem lies in the PAP government's policies, which seek
profit in what essentially are welfare provision sectors and
essential services. The policy of allowing cheap foreign labour has
also displaced unskilled Singaporeans. For instance, some may look
towards working as a security guard or officer when they lose their
jobs as an interim stop gap measure. But increasingly they find
themselves competing with foreign workers as well in these
industries. Thus, when the economy is bad and jobs are scarce, even a
security guard job option is also made more competitive with foreign
worker involvement. And for those who insist that foreign talent is
good, we need to add a rejoinder to question why when the foreigners
come, we have Singaporeans losing jobs?

Wealth redistributions are cast aside in favour of forcing high
growth to mediate poverty levels - an ineffective solution. A
scrutiny of the rich to find ways to accommodate the poor is
prematurely discharged as the "politics of envy. As the economy
matures and the PAP practices a fiscal policy to attract the Multi
National Corporations, continues the foreign talent policy, but asks
the citizens to bear more hardship without making structural
adjustments for their welfare - a new poverty emerges.

From New Rich to New Poor

Ordinary people find it harder each day to manage basic expenses.
Others who seem, in material terms, well-off are challenged in terms
of their financial obligations, ability to manage them adequately and
capacity to cope with the accompanying social fallout. Once touted as
the New Rich, they are now the New Poor. Meanwhile, the gap between
the rich and the poor continues to widen. Needless to say some of the
fast rising salaries are for the Ministers. It has created a
condition where there is poverty amidst affluence.

One way to avoid being the New Poor is to leave the country, live or
work overseas to enjoy a different lifestyle. However, this is not a
solution for a country with a young history trying to build a
nationhood. Besides for many of us, this is our home. In any case,
only those from certain categories can afford to leave the country
and avoid being the New Poor in Singapore. Many won't even qualify to
gain entry into another country. This is the class that the PAP
ignores because they neither have the means or the capacity to
migrate, and at the same time, they are the ones that the PAP can
chide at will. These are the people that the PAP scares into voting
for them. The scare tactic is that there would be no material
guarantees without the PAP. Material punitive measures would also be
taken against them, for example denying them upgrading for their
flats if they vote for anybody else.

Health care, housing, utilities are all essentials. As such, long-
term mortgages for public housing, loans for further education
(locally) or even health care that place heavy financial burdens on
people are major concerns. Cars, overseas education and travel maybe
not for some. However given the PAP policies of pursuing materialism,
loans for overseas education and the seven-year lease also figure
importantly in the financial plans of those who want them. And
because the needs and wants are all linked to a generation of PAP
policies we have all become and can be classified as "poor" in
certain ways.

Now that the recession has set in, what has been a trend for many
years now is increasingly kicking in - the cost of living has risen
and continues to rise. Health care, housing, utilities, education and
the purchase of consumer goods are expensive and are eating into
one's income – that is if you have one. Therefore essentials such as
housing, education, health should be made affordable and no one must
be deprived of this, even if they are unemployed and has no financial
ability to pay. With more unemployment expected over the next few
months, this is a concern. Long-term structural solutions have to be
found to address the issues affecting the New Poor.

Monday, February 11, 2002


THE OPTICAL, Singapore

Disclaimer: The Optical (Singapore) provides Singapore political news
as well as other types of news which we believe will have an impact
on Singapore either directly or indirectly. The Optical is not
responsible for the content of broadcasted articles.

Singapore's Pension Overhaul
May Further Hurt Home Prices

By PANG AI LIN
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

SINGAPORE -- Singapore's private-property market is bracing for
another blow, thanks to new limits on the state-run pension program,
a traditional source for financing a new home.

Once one of Asia's most expensive cities, Singapore has watched its
private-property prices fall by one-third since 2000 as the economy
soured. And with as many as 29,000 unsold units on the horizon,
analysts say the situation isn't likely to improve any time soon.

This is bad news for Singapore's small developers, who will be hurt
most by the limits, but it will please the government, which has been
trying to push down property prices since 1996 in an effort to reduce
the cost of doing business in the city-state.

Nine out of 10 Singaporeans live in state-subsidized housing, but
many buy property for investment or to upgrade from government
housing.

Last week, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong proposed overhauling the
state-run mandatory Central Provident Fund -- in effect cutting
workers' compensation -- to lower business costs and save jobs in the
city-state. The move effectively will cut home affordability and damp
already poor demand in a market plagued by oversupply and soft prices.

"We thought that property prices would bottom out this year," said
UOB Kay-Hian analyst Tricia Song. "But now, there may be a lag of one
to two quarters. We think we'll see some recovery in the second half
of next year when the economy has also picked up."

Local private-property prices slipped 0.6% during the April-through-
June quarter to a four-year low. While nearly 2,000 homes were sold
during the quarter, up from about 427 in the January-through-March
period, analysts doubt that sales trend will continue.

With just a month to go, "the third quarter could be as bad as the
first quarter," an analyst said.

For 2003, Standard & Poor's expects home sales to fall by half from
the 9,500 units sold last year. By 2004, S&P estimates there will be
29,000 vacant units for sale, a staggering number that could take
more than three years to clear.

"Given this pressure, it is possible that developers might choose to
delay property launches or lower launching prices," said S&P analyst
Yasmin Wirjawan. She said private-property prices could fall about 5%
during the next 12 to 18 months unless there is a turnaround in the
economy.

"Such actions will have a negative impact on the cash flows and
credit quality of property developers," she said.

"Anyone who's just focused on the local residential market will be
hit," said Ms. Song at UOB Kay-Hian, pointing to Allgreen Properties
Ltd., MCL Land Ltd. and Wing Tai Holdings Ltd.

Allgreen, controlled by Malaysian tycoon Robert Kuok, has three
projects in the pipeline but hasn't firmed up its plans to launch
them, company officials said. Representatives from MCL Land and Wing
Tai weren't immediately available for comment.

Write to Pang Ai Lin at ai-lin.pang@...

Updated September 2, 2003 4:34 p.m.

Insurance chief says retirement funds affected by CPF cuts

2 September 2003
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030902/5/singapore48051.html

The Life Insurance Association has warned that many Singaporeans
could be left with too little money for their retirement, following
cuts to the CPF savings scheme announced last week.

President of the Association, Raymond Kwok is urging Singaporeans not
to spend too much on their homes to prevent them falling short of
retirement funds.

The Life Insurance Association says most Singaporeans currently spend
80 to 90 percent of their CPF savings to finance their properties.

Mr Kwok said: "A person should only use 10 to 15 percent of their
income to fund their housing. Unfortunately in the CPF context we
have more fixed assets being accrued from the contribution than
liquid assets. In an ideal situation, ignoring the CPF scheme, a
retirement scheme should be built up with an average of 18 to 22
percent of person's income so that the person can retire at two-
thirds of his final salary."

It is widely expected that private home prices will now fall in the
near-term, with some shifting to smaller, more affordable
accommodation.

October's 3 percent CPF cut is also expected impact life insurance
sales.

Mr Kwok said: "Some CPF members who have purchased policies which are
larger than expected, so they can't fund the future premiums.
Insurance companies are quite prepared to relook those policies and
adjust it downwards to more realistic levels."

He also expects to see some policy terminations this year because of
the CPF cuts.

------------------------------------------------------------------


Comments from sender:

Below is Lee Han Shih's response to SPH ana PAP.

As usual Singapore's policy makers display severe myopia even when reading
recommendations on wage reforms.

Lord have mercy on us all...

Cut cost of civil service, not the size

YOUR report, 'New panel to cut waste in govt' (ST, Aug 30), stated that Deputy
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had called a suggestion by newspaper columnist
Lee Han Shih - that the size of the civil service be cut by 30 per cent
-'absurd'.

I have never advocated cutting the headcount of the civil service by 30 per
cent.

What I suggested was for the Government to cut the cost of the civil service to
make it cheaper to do business in Singapore.

Below is an excerpt from my column in the Aug 19 issue of Today:'Every 10 per
cent reduction in civil service costs will indirectly reduce business costs by
1 per cent. If the civil service manages a big enough cut, say 30 per cent,
this might make it unnecessary to impose such a drastic reduction in CPF
contributions, since businesses would already be enjoying cost savings of 3 per
cent.'

In fact I strongly suggest that the Government avoid further retrenchments, as
this would aggravate the unemployment situation and make it harder for those
already retrenched to find new jobs.

An across-the-board cut in salaries, plus doing away with unnecessary levies
and taxes, would achieve the same objective with less pain.


LEE HAN SHIH

CSJ to LHL: Let's put observation to test
3 September 2003

http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/news_display.php?id=337

To: Mr Lee Hsien Loong
Deputy Prime Minister
Prime Minister's Office

Dear DPM Lee,

Responding to the increasingly controversial move to cut CPF rates,
you said in Parliament that you "did not see one million people
demonstrating on Parliament Square" and then concluded that "this
showed the people had trust in the Government."

For those unfamiliar with the PAP system, this might seem a
reasonable deduction especially if the party in power respected the
rights of citizens to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly.

But, of course, most of us are familiar with the PAP system and know
that you need to do a better job when it comes to balancing your
rhetoric with reality. Surely you remember that your own Minister for
Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng recently declared that "the Government
does not authorise protests and demonstrations of any nature."

It may be hard for you to figure this out but it is not easy to see
one million people demonstrating on Parliament Square when even one
person exercising his right to free speech is hauled away by the
police. Remember my arrest outside the Istana on May 1, 2002?

Surely you have also not forgotten that I was prosecuted on two other
occasions just for speaking to my fellow citizens during lunchtime at
Raffles Place? You will agree that this is a far cry
from "demonstrating on Parliament Square."

Even the application by the Open Singapore Centre (OSC) to organize a
marathon run to commemorate International Human Rights Day in 2000
was rejected by the authorities. When participants gathered for the
occasion minus the run, they were warned by the police because they
had committed an offence when they raised their fists and
shouted "Abolish ISA!" And mind you, this was at the Speakers'
Corner!

This year when the OSC applied for a protest march to take place from
the Ministry of Manpower at Havelock Road to Parliament House on May
Day, it was again rejected.

The Government even banned a rally that was planned outside the
Burmese Embassy at St Martin's Drive to protest against the continued
incarceration of Burma's democracy leader, Ms Aung San Suu Kyi.

Then there were the six individuals who were arrested for protesting
against the Iraq war. That same day six million people did the same
thing all over the world.

Be that as it may, let me give you the benefit of a doubt and assume
that you either did not know anything about what I have just related
or could not remember any of it. Why don't we put your claim to the
test: Grant us the permit to hold a demonstration outside the
Parliament House and let us see just how much the people trust the
Government.

Until you show courage and let the people exercise their right to
free speech and assembly – rights, I might add, that you and your
colleagues have robbed from the people – your observation remains
highly suspect, one that is certainly not worthy for a future prime
minister to hold.

I await your reply.

Sincerely,

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

Comments from sender: kilometric (katami@...)
Subject: Re: Trust? or...broken bond.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.singapore
Date: 2003-09-02 18:42:00 PST

When I heard PM GCT chided both opposition's Low TK and PAP's Amy Khor
in parliament for using the word "Betrayal", I thought GCT is overly
sensitive to the word.

In current circumstances, "Betrayal" might not so appropriate, but it
is also not that far off the spot.

Under the Cambridge On line Dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=7154&dict=CALD

The definition of "Betray" means "NOT LOYAL", For example, "If someone
betrays something such as a promise, they do not do what they said
they would:
1. The government has been accused of betraying its election promises.
(quoted in cambridge dictionary !)
2. By staying out so late, they have betrayed my trust (= disappointed
me because I had trusted them to not be late).

OR

1 : to lead astray; especially : SEDUCE
2 : to deliver to an enemy by treachery
3 : to fail or desert especially in time of need
4 a : to reveal unintentionally b : SHOW, INDICATE c : to disclose in
violation of confidence

I guess "Disappointment" or "Disillusion" or "Reneged" or "Mislead" or
even "Puzzled" might be better words, if GCT wants to argue word for
word.

However, if you look through both GCT and LKY speeches in the past 10
years, I can't help but feel a sense of irony in their speeches. Both
said how falling of Berling Wall in former East Germany, demises of
Communist Soviet Union and opening of China will boost Singapore
economy and all Singapore workers will earn 4X 1994 salary and an
ordinary factory worker will earn S$2500 a month.

I laughed and fell of the chair reading that article !

In addition, they painted 3 growth scenarios of Singapore in the
future - low growth, middle growth and high growth - and how Singapore
will benefit from PAP high speed growth policy and why Stagnation will
never occur in Singapore.

I think in the end the facts speak for themselves and Singapore is
stuck in low growth forever, ironically due to PAP government high
speed, high growth, high wage, high cost a.k.a high value policy.

Is "Betray" too strong a word ? I doubt so. If PAP government can cite
how opening of China and India can benefit Singapore economy in 1994,
they can also cite how opening of China and India can kill Singapore
economy, but they never did in 1994, in 1997, and in 1999.

They only cited  when the Singapore economy is in trouble during 2001
and 2002. So it is also a form of selective amnesia, practiced by all
politicians, PAP and non PAP alike.

GCT taking to task an opposition, or own party member for using the wrong
word is like the pot calling the kettle black.

No doubt they are all politicians.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A combative PM Goh:
He lashes out at MPs who harped on the ‘betrayal’ issue
By Teo Hwee Nak

In a measure of how jealously the Government guards its reputation for upholding
the trust of Singaporeans, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong launched a biting,
all-out offensive on those who had challenged that image in Parliament
yesterday.

Apart from the usual suspects – the Opposition politicians – he even singled out
MPs from his own party who had used emotive words such as “betrayal” during the
recent debate on CPF cuts.

Advertisement


It was a different Mr Goh from the genial leader one normally sees in public.
The man known for expanding the areas of public debate even chided his party
members for “singing the same tune as the opposition”.

Acknowledging that the CPF changes are no “miracle cure”, PM Goh outlined the
three fundamental qualities that make a country successful: Quality leadership,
a sensible and practical people and the trust between the people and the
Government.

It was in espousing his last point that he lashed out.

PM Goh made a distinction between himself and Mr Low Thia Kiang and Mr Chiam See
Tong by saying that while they are “politicians”, he regarded himself as a
“political leader” who tackled grave problems squarely.

“I never duck an issue even if it will cost me some votes,” he said.

Then pointing at Mr Low, who was sitting in front of him, he said: “Mr Low, on
the other hand, sees a fire in a problem and, instead of putting it out, looks
for the biggest fan to fan the fire. And when he sees a wound, he looks for a
bucket of salt to rub into the wound.”

In a fierce speech last Friday, Mr Low had accused PM Goh and the Government of
suffering from “total amnesia” in forgetting the election promise to create jobs
and restore CPF rates.

PM Goh’s rebuttal yesterday was that Mr Low had selective amnesia, because he
“conveniently forgot” to mention events that had happened that were beyond the
Government’s control, like acts of terrorism, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
and the Sars outbreak.

“Selective amnesia is not a medical condition. It is a political condition, to
be admonished and not treated with sympathy. In case Singaporeans miss my
punchline again, the common name for Mr Low’s selective amnesia is Opposition
politics,” he said.

He then slammed the Hougang MP’s tactic as “corrosive”: “He is trying to corrode
a fundamental pillar of the PAP – the trust between the people and the
Government.”

Moving on to the Potong Pasir MP, PM Goh described Mr Chiam’s condition as a
variant of selective amnesia called “quoting out of context”, and dubbed his
speech last Thursday a “washy-washy speech”, punning on the anecdote MP Indranee
Rajah quoted in Parliament last week.

“Mr Chiam made another attempt to wash in public past speeches by ministers …
But his tactic does not work, because the Government has no dirty linen for him
to wash! We keep our PAP shirts and pants very white,” said PM Goh.

Non-Constituency MP Steve Chia was also not spared, despite the Opposition
politician having said earlier that he was “much satisfied and thankful” that
the Government had become “more attentive and sensitive” to the ground. Mr Chia
had also made clear he rewrote his first speech – a “bitter critique” of the
Government – after hearing about the relief packages last Friday.

For this, PM Goh accused Mr Chia of “two-timing” in a “boy-girl relationship”.
“You have to decide which position you want. You can’t try and go with one girl
and, behind her back, go with another girl,” he said.

He then turned on his own party MPs. Dr Amy Khor was admonished for using the
word “betrayal” twice in her speech in Parliament yesterday. Dr Khor had told
the House that some of her constituents had felt “a sense of betrayal” by the
Government and unhappy Singaporeans were contemplating migrating.

Noting that Mr Low had also used the same “very strong word” in his attack on
the Government, he advised PAP MPs “not to unwittingly erode the trust between
the people and the Government” and not to “sing the same tune as Opposition
MPs”.

“Instead, they should stand their ground and debunk this betrayal nonsense,” he
said sternly.

MP Inderjit Singh was chided for saying that the Government has no strategy for
economic recovery.

He said: “I do not understand why Inderjit Singh said that the Government did
not have an economic plan. Has he not read the ERC (Economic Review Committee)
report?”

He recalled a Master’s programme he attended back in 1966 as one of the 20
representatives from 16 Third World countries then.

Of the 16, he said, only Malaysia, Mexico and Singapore have succeeded today.
“The fate of my classmates and their countries has a sobering effect on me. It
could well have been my fate and the fate of Singapore,” he said.

Mr Low jumped to his feet to say that he did not support the CPF cuts and
challenged the Government to “cut red tape or cut the ministers’ salaries”
instead.

In character with his performance yesterday, PM Goh’s rebuttal was swift.

He challenged Mr Low: “Do you seriously recommend that we go back to 40 per
cent? Would you stand up and tell the people that 40 per cent is right for
Singapore now? Would you? Would you answer me?”

Mr Low replied: “It is for the PAP, the Prime Minister, who had made the
promise, to stay with the promise. I didn’t make the promise.”

Government intimidates again
4 September 2003
By: Chee Siok Chin

http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/news_display.php?id=343

I don't know whether to feel dismayed or incensed about Mr Goh Chok
Tong's rebuttal to his own PAP MP about using the word `betrayal' on
his government.

Dismayed because this episode shows so clearly how tightly the hands
of the PAP MPs are tied when it comes to speaking up for the people.
PM Goh was effectively saying that his MPs ought to sell the
Government's decisions to the people - never mind how the people
feel.

Shouldn't a spade be called a spade? So much for transparency and
openness if the Government cannot handle candour without having to
resort to intimidation and derision.

What riles me is that the PM has forgotten that MPs are there to
serve the citizens, not just his party. Sadly, and dangerously for
Singaporeans, this is the typical mindset of the ruling party. When
the Government says stand up for Singapore, what it means is stand up
for the PAP!

Tragically, Singaporeans end up paying heavily for this propaganda.
What we have in Singapore is a Government that demands to be feared,
obeyed and served.

Punishing dissent in Singapore: Report by lawyers' group

http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/news_display.php?id=341

4 September 2003

On April 4, 2003, Singaporean opposition leader and labor activist
Dr. Chee Soon Juan lost his appeal in a defamation case that has been
ongoing since 2001. He was appealing a judgment finding him liable
for defaming Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and former Prime Minister
Lee Kuan Yew. The complaint brought by these officials related to
remarks made by Dr. Chee during a national election campaign while he
was advocating for a compensation package for laid off workers.

The Lawyers Committee sent international observers to the appeal
hearing in the Singapore High Court in February 2003. These observers
concluded that pre-trial and trial procedures in this case failed to
meet international standards guaranteeing the right to a fair
hearing. In addition, they note that the suit reinforces a long-
standing pattern of government acts denying Dr. Chee full protection
for the right to freedom of expression.

Below is an extract of the report.


A number of serious deficiencies marred the hearing before Justice
Rubin on February 7, 2003. First and fundamentally there was the
inequality of the courtroom battle between leading counsel and his
team on the one side, and the unrepresented litigant on the other.

When it comes to issues such as the law on duress, how one applies
the legal tests of defamation to a particular case, and what is
needed as a matter of fact and of law to answer a claim for summary
judgment, the unrepresented litigant is plainly at a manifest and
unanswerable disadvantage. The Human Rights Committee, which monitors
and authoritatively interprets the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, considers legal representation to be
fundamental to a fair trial (as mentioned above). Indeed, it
specifies that such representation should include in-person
communication.

To suggest, as Justice [MPH] Rubin has in his judgment and did at the
hearing, that an opportunity could be given (and was given) to Dr.
Chee to consult on questions of legal argument is wholly beside the
point. In fact, the only advice that Dr. Chee had received from
foreign counsel for some months before the hearing was advice by
email from Mr. Littlemore. In any event, no amount of long distance
consultation with a lawyer, thousands of kilometers away in a
different country, could compensate for the lack of legal
representation from which Dr. Chee suffered. Court hearings are
dynamic events; the variables move and change as the hearing unfolds.
A layperson representing himself or herself, is at a stark
disadvantage in even seeking to convey to an absent lawyer what was
happening in court, what it was that concerned the judge, or where
the case seemed to be going or what were the strengths of the
opponent's case, and how the judge appeared to perceive matters.

An example of the kind of difficulty, even on factual matters, faced
by the litigant in person arose at the hearing. Dr. Chee said to the
Court that the Senior Assistant Registrar, at the original
hearing, "was nit-picking, looking for contradictions (in Dr. Chee's
testimony) where none existed." The judge rebuked Dr. Chee for this
comment, saying that Dr. Chee should confine himself to "criticizing
the judgment and, if the Senior Assistant Registrar was wrong, do not
use the word `nit-picking' but, if the judgment was wrong, highlight
the portion before me." The close analysis of judgments and the
cogent presentation of argument dealing with factual issues are
skills which rest at the heart of the training and experience of an
appellate advocate and cannot reasonably be expected from a lay
person.

It is well recognized in common law jurisdictions, such as Singapore,
that unrepresented litigants pose a particular problem to the courts,
and that the courts should always be ready to protect them. This can
be done in a number of ways. The judge can, himself or herself, raise
the kinds of issues and questions that the unrepresented party should
be raising with the represented side. In addition, the more unequal
the representation, the more testing the issues either as to legal or
factual complexity, or the more grave the consequences to the
unrepresented side should he be unsuccessful (as by an award of
damages, possible bankruptcy, and professional disqualification), the
more careful the judge should be. It would seem that the Court's
sensitivities and concerns for the position of an unrepresented
litigant would be heightened when the proceedings in question are
brought by the present and former head of the government of the day,
the two most powerful figures in the State. Furthermore, it is common
practice in many common law jurisdictions for a court, when it feels
the interests of justice so require, to ask for the appointment of
amicus curiae (a "friend of the court") to help an unrepresented
party to put his or her arguments.

Secondly, the Lawyers Committee believes that an impartial observer
could form the opinion that Justice Rubin's conduct was influenced by
bias for the plaintiffs and against the defendant. On the issue of
Mr. Singh's statement about the "panoply" of eminent defamation
Q.C.'s available to Dr. Chee, and that Dr. Chee's own Q.C.'s
recognized that his appeal was completely hopeless, it is surprising
that this kind of submission could be put to the Court without the
Court raising some firm and direct questions. These questions would
go to the identity of the defamation experts allegedly assisting Dr.
Chee, the basis upon which Mr. Singh believed that this advice was
being received, and exactly why the absence of submissions (as
asserted by Mr. Singh) should lead the Court to conclude that Dr.
Chee's own legal advisers thought the case to be hopeless. None of
these questions were raised by Justice Rubin. Mr. Singh's submission
appears calculated to leave the impression that this kind of legal
backup was in fact available to Dr. Chee, so that his lack of
representation before the Court was not as problematic as it might
appear.

The absence of questioning by Justice Rubin on this point appears to
demonstrate that Mr. Singh's strategy may have been successful.
Neither at the hearing, on February 7, nor in the course of his
judgment, did Justice Rubin display the least concern that Dr. Chee
was unrepresented. The Lawyers Committee considers that this apparent
lack of concern, coupled with the considerable latitude extended to
Mr. Singh in his submissions to the Court, resulted in manifest
unfairness in the course of the hearing and, specifically, the denial
to Dr. Chee of a fair hearing that met the international norms to
which we have referred.

Thirdly, it is troubling that Dr. Chee never was granted an
opportunity to argue the merits of his defense or to bring witnesses
to support his case in a public venue. As stated above, the Lawyers
Committee considers that there appear to be triable issues in this
matter, such as whether or not the words spoken by Dr. Chee were
defamatory and whether there was pressure brought to bear on Dr. Chee
that should render his apology and admission void for duress. The
questions Dr. Chee raised during his election campaign, which were
the subject of the suit against him, were undoubtedly a matter of
public importance. The prudence of government-led defamation actions
against the political opposition is also an appropriate matter for
public scrutiny and debate. The significance of the issues raised in
this case and the public profile of the parties are such that the
appeal judge's decision to uphold summary judgment not only infringes
Dr. Chee's right to a public hearing on the charges against him, but
hampers public access to the administration of justice.

Finally, the Lawyers Committee is concerned by the deleterious impact
of this suit on freedom of expression in Singapore. Dr. Chee's
political career, pursued by him at great personal cost as his
history shows, may be nearing its end. Dr. Chee has indicated to
trial observers that he wishes to appeal against Justice Rubin's
judgment but lacks funds to meet the S$10,000 deposit for security
for costs required to file an application in the Court of Appeal.
Damages and aggravated damages are to be assessed against him and, in
light of the levels of damages set in past defamation actions brought
by P.A.P. plaintiffs, the awards will likely be substantial. Dr. Chee
has told trial observers that he would not be able to meet defamation
awards of any magnitude. The probable outcome is therefore that Dr.
Chee will be made bankrupt and remain disqualified from political
life. The fact that this bankruptcy and bar on political activities
will be based on a lawsuit heard and adjudicated upon in a judicial
officer's private chambers, to which there was no public access,
serves only to underline the powers of the ruling party to curb
popular debate.

Recommendations

The Lawyers Committee recommends that the following measures be taken
by the Singaporean authorities:

- Judgment should be vacated in the two suits against Dr. Chee Soon
Juan and he should be given the opportunity to challenge the merits
of the claims against him in a public, civil trial with adequate
legal representation;

- Singapore law should be amended so as to allow jury trials in
defamation suits. A jury system ensures the independence of the
judicial system by creating distance between the executive and the
courts. This change should apply to the present suits;

- Applications for summary judgment in defamation suits should be
heard in open court;

- Section 14 of Singapore's Defamation Act should be amended to allow
for a wide-ranging defense of qualified privilege for statements made
in the course of political debate;

- Section 21 of Singapore's Legal Profession Act, which contains the
rules relating to the ad hoc admission of foreign Queen's Counsel,
should be amended so as to create a prima facie presumption that in
defamation proceedings such admission is warranted;

- The Public Entertainments and Meetings Act should be repealed or
substantially amended so as to allow public meetings without
permission subject only to bona fide and serious concerns about such
matters as public safety. The onus to establish such concerns should
lie on the police or other appropriate public body. In case of
dispute, an appeal should lie to an independent judicial officer;

- Article 45 of the Constitution of Singapore, which sets out the
criteria for disqualification of Members of Parliament, should be
amended so as to limit disqualification of Members of Parliament who
are convicted of criminal offenses to only those convictions which
carry a penalty of imprisonment for one year or longer.

For the full report of the trial observation, the Singapore
Government's response to the report, and the Lawyers Committee's
reply to the Singapore Government, please go to:

http://www.lchr.org/workers_rights/wr_se_asia/wr_singapore/wr_chee/che
e_01.htm

Comments; Mellanie Hewlitt
4 Sep 2003
Singapore Review

In the 4 Sep 2003 issue of TODAY; "TIME FOR PAYBACKS", having imposed a
mandotory across the board CPF cut, the PAP Government is now "encouraging"
employers to give "reprieve" to workers.

Several things immediately standout and are noteworthy here. whilst wage cuts
(via CPF reductions) are mandatory in nature and cavalierly dished out by the
current government, there is no similiar mandatory calling to employers for
workers reprieve. Employers are only "encouraged" and mere lip-service is given
by the government on this front.

PM Goh repeated the sailboat analogy he used in Parliament on Tuesday, but this
time, he stressed that everyone has a role to play in this "sailboat" -
including the private sector employers - to address workers'anxiety. "The
workers, given the current lack of wind, have to row very hard just to make
some movement for the ship," he said. "The workers have also been told that
they will have their ration cut, with the CPF cut ..."

Well, have PAP Ministers examined their own roles lately?

Taking up the ministers analogy of workers in a rowing boat,in these stormy
waters, Singaporeans need a good and trustworthy Captain to be in THE SAME BOAT
with them, to understand their plight and to lead them to safe haven. The last
thing we need is a Captain who merely pays lip-service by hollering orders to
us from the comfortable confines of a luxury liner safely anchored somewhere in
Timbaktu.

And therein lies the unpalatable truth. SGD180,000/- per month worth of
unpalatable truth. Being “in the same boat” necessarily means experiencing the
same hardships as the rest of us. The very nature of a minister’s salary
removes him from the small boat we are in and elevates him to the secure and
comfortable setting of a 6 star luxury liner. And it is from this lofty bow
that Singapore’s Ruling Elite “lead” their flock.

But there are immediate problems with leading from this palace on the sea.
Credibility and sincererity are serious looming issues.

I could not help but feel that Singaporeans had been short-changed some where
along the line.

Additional to the CPF cuts (which are still not defined), the current CPF
ceiling is also to be reduced below SGD5,000/-. The rationale given is
that "high" income earners in the top 20% percentile are likely to have
sufficient savings and the CPF is meant to cater to the needs of the 80% of
income earners who earn less then SGD5,000/- a month. Whilst there is some
truth in the efficacy of this policy, it nonetheless highlights the wage
discrepancy between monthly salaries of PAP ministers (between SGD100,000 to
SGD180,000/- a month) and the other 80% of the incoming earning population.

If a person earning SGD5,000/- is considered within the top 20% of Singapore's
income earning population, where does that place a minister who earns 20 times
this top-percentile salary?

Are Singaporeans seeing the results of a micro-managed economy gone awfully
wrong? And why have policy makers not learnt from their past mistakes to let
market forces regulate the ebb and flow of the economy? Perhaps it is because
wage restraint policies do not affect Ministers on a personal level.

"When asked how the pay cut would affect him, Mr Goh admitted candidly that it
would have little impact as his children were grown up and his house paid
for, "I do not speculate on the property market. I do not have any
oustanding loans. I don't owe anybody anything. So what I have, I don't spend
very much."
- Straits Times, on how the 10% ministerial pay cut would affect PM Goh Chok
Tong, Mar 23, 2003

Which is all well and good for Mr Goh. But unfortunately, the rest of
Singaporeans (all 99.9%) do not earn SGD180,000 a month.

In the mean time, Singapore's well paid policy makers have also remained
stragely silent regarding the mounting evidence which prove that the original
basis for the CPF cuts (that Singaporea wages are higher then those in the US,
UK and Australia) is erroneous. We circulate below two articles containing
government census data from Singapore and the US which shed further light over
the reliability of the PERC methodology and figures.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Full Marx for Singapore's working class.

By Jake van der Kamp jakeva@s...
29 August 2003
South China Morning Post
(c) 2003 South China Morning Post Publishers Limited, Hong Kong. All
rights reserved.

AND HERE IS the latest gem from Singapore, straight from the front
page in this diehard bastion of central planning of the leading
English language newspaper, Pravda (Party Rendition and Authorised
Version of Daily Announcements).

Apparently the Singapore government is worried wages have gone too
high and some corrective action must be taken to bring them down.

That finding results in part from what some people in New York told
Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan on a visit there (this counts for
detailed policy research in Singapore) and partly from a recent wage
survey by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (Perc), which
rated labour costs in Singapore as higher than those in the United
States or Australia.

Perc's methodology in this survey was to ask expatriates what they
thought of labour costs in different countries, another example of
the sort of detailed policy research that has little time for hard
statistics. The figures from both countries on employee earnings say
that average wages are at least 25 per cent greater in the US than in
Singapore and this is after taking the highest Singapore numbers I
could find.

For the flavour of what you get when basing a labour cost study on
expatriate opinion, notice from the table that Perc rates labour
costs in Vietnam higher than in Thailand. For a good laugh tell that
to people in Hanoi or Bangkok.

You may also wish to note that Singapore's gross domestic product per
capita is 25 times greater than Indonesia's while Perc says its
average labour costs are only 1.6 times as great. This sort of
disparity with neighbouring countries is common and suggests that
Singapore workers are underpaid for their level of productivity.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good scare story. The
Singapore government subscribes to the story and has come up with a
way to cut labour costs - cut back contributions to the Central
Provident Fund (CPF) from their present level of 36 per cent of
employee earnings. This does not mean, by the way, employees will
instead get this money. It is their employers who will.

Now if the Hong Kong government were to cut Mandatory Provident Fund
contributions in Hong Kong most people probably would applaud. It is
dead money anyway. Given the derisory rates of return that the CPF
gives Singaporeans, you would think they might share that sentiment.

But Singaporeans do not have to wait until retirement to get their
CPF money. They can use their contributions to pay for their homes
and other approved investments. Many of them are thus unhappy with
the proposed cut. In mortgage payments they will have to make up from
their direct income what previously they got from the CPF. It is all
rather highhanded and will hurt them.

And who will benefit? To answer this question you must first
appreciate two crucial differences between Singapore and Hong Kong.
The first is courtesy of the usual central planner's obsession with
making things, Singapore still has 25 per cent of its economy tied up
in manufacturing while the figure in Hong Kong is less than 5 per
cent.

The second is that 75 per cent of investment in manufacturing in
Singapore is foreign investment whereas that figure in Hong Kong is
negligible. What will happen in Singapore is foreign employers will
take what native Singaporean workers lose through this cut.

There will be a transfer of wealth from the people who worked for it
to the multinational corporations (MNCs). This could be excusable if
these MNCs then invested the money back in Singapore but the
difficulty is capital investment in Singapore is dropping faster than
a rock in freefall and has never been lower than it is now, relative
to the size of the economy. The MNCs are mostly in exit mode now.
They will not put the money back into Singapore. They will just take
it home with them.

Then you get to that fuzzy thinking that labour costs are an
obstruction to economic performance. If so, Mr Tan, may I ask you
what is the point of economic effort? Is it not to improve the
prosperity of those who participate? What sort of an achievement is
it if you instead make them poorer?

I have always maintained that Singapore is the one country to have
come closest to achieving communism in the classic Marxist sense.
This is now unfortunately also showing the classic result of central
planning put in practice, a steady grinding down of working class
disposable income.

--- End forwarded message ----------------------------------

From:   apson lim <apsonlim@y...>
Date:  Fri Aug 29, 2003  11:53 am
Subject:  Our labour costs higher than US? Who's kidding who?
27 Aug 03

Here's some corroborating data from the Singapore Ministry of Manpower and the
US Department of Labor.

The occupational groups used in both studies aren't identical but they are
similar enough to give one a pretty good idea of the general picture.

2002 Monthly Wage by Occupational Group (SGP)
http://www.mom.gov.sg/MOM/MRSD/Others/2002W_OWSfindings.pdf

1. Managers -- S$5,856
2. Professionals -- S$3,798
3. Technicians & Associate Professionals -- S$2,655
4. Clerical Workers -- S$1,818
5. Service & Sales Workers -- S$1,650
6. Production Craftsmen -- S$2,000
7. Plant & Machine Operators -- S$1,680
8. Cleaners & Labourers -- S$1,171

2002 Monthly Wage by Occupational Group (USA)
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncbl0539.pdf

1. Executive, administrative, and managerial -- S$9109
2&3. Professional specialty and technical -- S$7170
4. Administrative support -- S$3567
5. Service occupations -- S$2383
5. Sales -- S$3455
6. Precision production, craft, and repair -- S$5267
7. Machine operators, assemblers, inspectors -- S$3706
7. Transportation and material moving -- S$3905
8. Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers -- S$2857

Source
======
REPORT ON WAGES IN SINGAPORE, 2002
http://www.mom.gov.sg/MOM/MRSD/Others/2002W_OWSfindings.pdf
by: Manpower and Statistics Department, Ministry of Manpower, Singapore
dated: 30 June 2003
Table 9
=======
Managers -- S$5,856
Professionals -- S$3,798
Technicians & Associate Professionals -- S$2,655
Clerical Workers -- S$1,818
Service & Sales Workers -- S$1,650
Production Craftsmen -- S$2,000
Plant & Machine Operators -- S$1,680
Cleaners & Labourers -- S$1,171

Glossary
========
Professionals -- Semi­conductor engineer; System designer & analyst; Civil
engineer; Accountant; Mechanical engineer, Auditor (Accounting); Electronics
engineer; Quantity surveyor; Software engineer; Network, systems and database
administrator

Technicians and Associate Professionals -- Road transport service supervisor;
Buyer; Personnel/Human resource officer; Draughtsman; Sales representative
(Technical); Quantity surveying technician; Assistant accountant; Assistant
nurse; Management executive; Pre­primary education teacher

Clerical Workers -- Material planning clerk; Billing clerk; Shipping clerk;
Telephone operator; Personnel/Human resource clerk; Data entry operator;
Secretary; Medical/Dental receptionist; Insurance/Underwriting clerk; Cashier

Service and Sales Workers -- Hawker/Stall holder; Waiter; Cook; Captain/Waiter
supervisor (Restaurant); Private security guard; Shop sales assistant; Sales
supervisor; Housekeeper (Hotels and other establishments); Bartender

Production Craftsmen and Related Workers -- Electronics fitter; Supervisor and
general foreman (Building trades); Industrial and office machinery mechanic;
Electrician; Motor vehicle mechanic; Sheet metal worker

Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers -- Petroleum and natural gas refining
plant operator; Pharmaceutical and toiletry products machine operator; Machine
supervisor and general foreman; Plastic product machine operator; Bus driver;
Electrical/Electronics products quality checker and tester; Van driver;
Trailer­truck driver; Driving instructor and tester; Electronic
equipment/component assembler

Cleaners, Labourers and Related Workers -- Cargo Handlers/loaders; Godown
labourer; Store hand; Car park attendant; Lorry attendant; Manufacturing
labourer and related worker; Aircraft loader; Office cleaner; Kitchen assistant;
Construction labourer and related worker


Source
======
NATIONAL COMPENSATION SURVEY: OCCUPATIONAL WAGES IN THE UNITED STATES,
JULY 2002
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncbl0539.pdf
by: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor
dated: June 2003
Table 1
=======
Professional specialty and technical -- S$7170 per month
[US$27.18 perhour; 36.1 hours per week]

Executive, administrative, and managerial -- S$9109 per month
[US$31.16 per hour; 40.0 hours per week]

Sales -- S$3455 per month
[US$14.50 per hour; 32.6 hours per week]

Administrative support -- S$3567 per month
[US$13.41 per hour; 36.4 hours per week]

Precision production, craft, and repair -- S$5267 per month
[US$18.20 per hour; 39.6 hours per week]

Machine operators, assemblers, inspectors -- S$3706 per month
[US$12.94 per hour; 39.2 hours per week]

Transportation and material moving -- S$3905 per month
[US$14.25 per hour; 37.5 hours per week]

Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers -- S$2857 per month
[US$10.98 per hour; 35.6 hours per week]

Service occupations -- S$2383 per month
[US$10.32 per hour; 31.6 hours per week]

1 month = 4.2 weeks; US$1 = S$1.74

Glossary
========
Too many professions to list here. Refer to the report.

Anyone who knows anything about the US wouldn't believe that the wages paid in
Singapore could possibly be higher than the wages paid in the US. This is also
consistent with the official data from both countries provided earlier.

So how could PERC have arrived at a different conclusion, assuming that they did
an honest investigation?

Clearly the difference must come from those jobs in Singapore that pay higher
wages than their counterparts in the US. As you can guess, there aren't too many
such jobs. I can think of two.

The first group comprise the high-ranking civil servants and public office
holders in Singapore. Federal and State employees in the US, even the
high-ranking ones, are among the most poorly paid people in the country. In
Singapore, it's the other way round.

The second group comprise foreign talents who have been paid large premiums by
various agencies in Singapore to relocate here. The well-known argument is: if
we don't pay a competitive salary over and above what these foreign talents are
receiving back at home, they wouldn't want to move to Singapore. And so we
created jobs for them in Singapore that pay more than their counterparts in the
US.

Apparently there are now so many of these jobs to an extent that the labour cost
balance is tipped in favor of the US despite the fact that most Singaporeans
still hold wages that fall far behind Americans with similar jobs.


From : PUISPIT
Sammyboy Alfresco Coffee Shop
Date : 27 Aug 03

Here are two links which detail the salaries of workers in two different sectors
in the US:
1) For median income in the manufacturing sector in the US in 2002:

http://www.abbott-langer.com/mfgsumm.html

The survey showed that on an annual basis, janitors are paid US$21,481
(S$38,000); machinists are paid US$27,643 (S$48,000); production supervisor are
paid US$45,206 (S$79,000). And etc.

2) For average starting salaries of administrative support staff in the US in
2003:

http://www.iaap-hq.org/ResearchTrends/Salaries2003.htm

Just check it out and come to your own conclusions.

We must not forget that on top of basic pay, commissions, bonuses and overtime
paid to US workers, US employers also need to contribute to the State and/or
Federal governments:

Social security and medicare (equivalent to our CPF)
Unemployment insurance
Employment training tax
Worker compensation insurance

Not forgetting the very high cost of medical insurance (anything from US$200 –
US$1000 per worker per month!!) borne by employers as part of the compensation
package.

All these additional contributions further increase the burden of hiring in the
US.

With so much data readily available, it doesn’t take much effort to verify
labour costs in most major cities in the world. Who are the MIW trying to fool?
It is irksome that in this internet age, the MIW persist in presuming that they
can continue to get away with their specious arguments.

A simple google search on the MIW’s favourite source, PERC, will quickly reveal
that:

1) little can be found about the consultancy firm or its reports
2) no one else quotes PERC’s reports as gospel truth the way the MIW do

Why?

Go check out PERC’s bare and unprofessional looking website (www.asiarisk.com)
and you’ll understand. Here’s some background info on its founder and MD:

[[Robert Broadfoot is the founder and Managing Director of Political & Economic
Risk Consultancy, Ltd. A US citizen, Mr. Broadfoot graduated with honors in
economics from OBERLIN COLLEGE in the United States in 1972. He has lived in
Hong Kong since 1975. Beside coordinating PERC s overall operations, Mr.
Broadfoot is directly responsible for managing PERC s research and consulting
involving mainland China and the Greater China region.]]

Economists and analysts I know described PERC as a tiny outfit whose reports are
sources they wouldn’t deign to quote.


From : PENGSAN
Sammyboy Alfresco Coffee Shop
Date : 28 Aug 03

I draw 1700 dollars a month with no increment for the last 3 years. My mum draws
500 dollars a month. We have long working hours, and rarely get to see each
other. After CPF 20% cut, we can barely make it through the end of the month.

Yet we have a rude shock when we both found out we are the third highest paid in
the world. Our PAP Goverment has just told us that we draw higher salaries than
even Australia and USA! Our unemployment problem is due to the Singapore
Citizen's fault. Our Salaries are just too high.

Well, just a few years ago, the PAP goverment say they were going to resume CPF
to 40%. Now, the tune has changed. We are paid too high. Cut CPF. At the same
time the signal is being sent that salaries should not be paid too high.
Remember? China and India much cheaper. Yes! But does the cost of a car or a
house the same as the cost in Singapore?

Our ministers and MPs are the highest paid in the whole world. They get millions
a year. Each constituency have 3 or 4 MPs. PAP is a big party. Singapore is very
small island! Do we need so many MPs? So many civil servants are redundant,
overpaid and highly inefficient.

Here we have a goverment who thinks they know best and never consults the
citizen of any decision that's made. In these times of difficulties we have a
650 million Esplanade splurge. Plus:

We have a transport minister who's main pirioty isn't transport efficiency but
profits.

We have the first driverless system that cost the citizen's transport extra and
breaks down thrice since it's use.

We have a goverment who on one hand splurge on the Esplanade scrimp on HDB
upgrades. Who won't learnt after repeated mistakes of bankrupt contractors
delaying the upgrading project time and again. It is only after flare ups do
they take attention to the issue.

Have they gone so fat that they have gone thick in the head?? PAP is entirely
faultless.

I see now an increasingly bleak future for Singapore. The goverment has a death
gripe on the enterprises here and practises pseudo-deregulations and
privatisations. They have no directions. Despite top scholarly decisions made,
Singapore's economy is going down, down down. And now, to top it all, they have
resorted to pointing fingers shifting blames. The lowest of the low. Our
salaries is higher than US.

Now we can all look forward to work till the end of our lives trying to pay up
mortgage and have a absolutely zero quality of life.

I can barely survive on my own, much less talk about getting married and having
children. I guess that option is reserved for the PRs and the FTs. I am in a
country where Singaporeans and it's goverment look down on it's own Singaporean
citizens. Where they give all the key roles and development to Angmoh FTs and
PRs.

Seems to me as the day goes by that the quitters are winners and losers are
stayers.

Ask yourself today, do you want a better quality of life? Will and can Singapore
give you a better quality of life?

Make a decision today. You'll feel better after you know where to go.

For those who want a better quality of life? Make plans. The PAP has shortchange
you and make you slaves to their system till the end of your days. Only you can
change your life.

Emigrate when the time is right.

From; Cheong Wing Lee
5 Sep 2003

Hi All,

The following is an article I sent to the Straits Times today for publication.
The chances of it being printed is less than 10% or at best highly edited like
the previous one they printed. This is the unedited version.

The Slapping Incident.

The general public perception is that no one outside of the government's
inner circle will ever know the truth about the "slapping incident". PM Goh
opened a can or worms by mentioning an incident that is best left as it was -
an unverifiable rumor. It was a political blunder.

Nevertheless, truth will eventually unveil itself in history no matter how
well the spin doctors try to cover it. For example the case of President
Kennedy and his wild sex life style while in office. The information was made
public after 50 years.

The recent case about the two university professors giving incorrect
statistics on foreign workers' employment figures shows the lack of
transparency in the Government. If these two innocent professors have access to
the same information kept secret by the government, they would not have
blundered and made those so called,"honest mistakes".

In this world of spin and counter spin, we are all wasting our time trying to
guess right from wrong, truth from lies. Perception is reality.

We should leave the slapping incident aside. What is relevant for
Singaporeans is whether the PM, in waiting, has matured from the slapping
incident (if there is one) and able to lead the country to stability and
prosperity.

The judgment is not promising as the level of enlightenment is not evident in
the government. They still use monetary rewards as a yardstick for
performance by paying themselves millions of dollars a year as ministers. No
matter what justifications the government employs to talk the public into
accepting it, it is morally wrong. Leaders must lead by  example at all times
and especially in difficult times.

There is no way the Singapore Government can justify paying its Prime
Minister more than the combined salaries of the leaders of five leading
countries in the world namely, USA, Canada, Russia, Britain and China. These
countries have a combined population of more than 500 times the population of
Singapore and with land mass of at least two thousand times the size of
Singapore. No one is that competent.

Neither can the Singapore government justify paying its ministers, senior
civil servants, military officers, many times more than their counterparts in
these developed countries. For example, a full colonel in Singapore is paid
more than a four star general, Collin Powers, when he was the Chief of Staff in
the US military.

Jesus Christ rode a donkey, a demeaning mode of transport, when he could have
ridden on a high horse. Gandhi could have a Mercedes instead he rode in
common carriers and coach. Mother Teresa could have any mode of transport she
desired but she opted for the cheapest form and asked for the balance to be
donated to charity. Dr. Sun Yat San could have anything he wanted but he always
opted for the cheaper form. These great people showed that they have reached
enlightenment where material wealth is no longer a factor in life but helping
and caring for others are.

Most ministers in the Singapore government have enough wealth gathered over
the past decade to last a few generations. They should all just work for free
to help Singapore and set really good examples. This is an opportunity of a
life time for the present Singapore leaders to go down in history like the
greats of Gandhi and Dr. Sun. The impact made to the world is more than any
spin doctors could do for the image of Singapore. It will attract investments
or at least attention to this tiny nation. Its citizens will be inspired by
such a patriotic gesture that many will sacrifice and die for the nation.  I
would.

However, I will not risk my life if my commanders are safely tucked in an ivory
towel with all the luxury and hollering orders to charge when I have little
ammunition or food.

Perhaps we could all take the advise of Confucius when he advised the King on
government;
"How can you have everything when the people have nothing?
How can you have nothing when the people have everything."

or we should ponder over the saying in Bible:
"When you seek YOUR life, you WILL LOSE IT.
When you lose YOUR life, you WILL GAIN IT."

The recent reprimand by PM Goh on a PAP MP and an opposition MP on the use of
the word, "betray' is a disappointment. Is the trust between the people and
the government so fragile that it could be shattered by the use of a single
word? Let us, the citizens, decide if they are telling the truth. Do not keep
telling us what is right or wrong. You have micromanaged us for four decades,
it is time to let go and let us learn and grow on our own. Let us make mistakes
and learn from them. Please unleash your hold on us and we will unleash our
creativity and perhaps make this tiny nation shine once again.

But as long as material wealth and power are the guiding principles of leaders,
we will have problems.

Respectfully yours,

Cheong Wing Lee - working for peanuts in Guangzhou, China

You can view it in the context of the entire discussion by going to:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages/?msg=33513.1

Forum:    the Sammyboy.com's Alfresco Coffee Shop Forum
Subject:  A Singapore Story
From:      (HOKKIENPENG)
DateTime: 01/09/2003 23:43:06

Mr Tan runs a business selling plastic toys. He hired managers Chan and Dick to
help run the company. The production line has five workers: Ah Beng, Ah Seng,
Ah Huat, Muthu and Ali.

As the CEO, Mr Tan pays himself a million dollars a year. His justification
is: "without a good leader, the business will not be successful; and you won't
get a good leader if you're unwilling to pay for one." Mr Tan has never worked
in another company before.

Chan had won a government scholarship twenty years ago while Dick is an
expatriate from America. Mr Tan thinks very highly of them and pays them each
half-a-million dollars a year.

As an expatriate, Dick also gets housing, transport and relocation allowances
amounting to a quarter of a million dollars a year.

The production workers each gets $1,500 a month with $300 going towards a
retirement gratuity that the company would match dollar-for-dollar.

The business hasn't been going too well. In fact, business has been downright
awful for the last few years. Consumers seem to prefer the cheaper plastic toys
from companies across the street.

Mr Tan is furious. "These consumers are a bunch of idiots," he said, "don't
they know that the companies across the street are not managed by talents like
Chan, Dick and myself?"

Mr Tan has always been deeply impressed by Chan and Dick. Chan has the
remarkable ability to use words like "synergy" and "paradigm shift" in every
sentence. And Dick? Dick is white.

So Mr Tan got down to some serious discussions with Chan and Dick. After many
hours of brain storming, they decided that they know what's wrong with the
company.

"We don't have enough talents," Mr Tan declared, "we need to hire more scholars
and white men." And he did. So now, there's Ang, who was Chan's best friend
when they were in RI, and Brad, Dick's brother. They are hired on the same
terms as Chan and Dick.

To reward themselves for coming up with this visionary strategy, Mr Tan gave
Chan, Dick and himself a 10% raise.

With the raise and the hiring of two new management staff, Mr Tan figured that
he had to cut cost. So he laid off Ah Huat, who's about to retire and receive
his retirement gratuity from the company.

The remaining four production workers now have to work 12 hours a day to cover
for Ah Huat. They didn't get any compensation for this extra work because Mr
Tan told them that this is a difficult time for the company and all workers
have to make some personal sacrifices. "Luckily, we now have a world class
management team and business will pick up in no time," Mr Tan proclaimed.

However, business hasn't picked up at all despite having a world class
management team. On the contrary, business seems to have worsen quite a bit.

Mr Tan is now even more furious. He has no doubt that he and his management
staff are world class. So the problem with the company must surely lie with the
blue-collar workers like Ah Beng and his gang, who hardly have any paper
qualifications and speak dialect and Singlish. But just to be sure, he engaged
the services of a management consultancy firm to confirm his belief.

The management consultant cost Mr Tan an arm and a leg but he identified the
problem: "Your labour cost is way too high. Do you know that the average annual
wage of your employees is more than $400,000? That's ten times the amount for
the companies across the street."

"Ah ha! Just as I thought," Mr Tan congratulated himself on arriving at the
same conclusion as a world class management consultant, "Ah Beng and his gang
are overpaid."

So Mr Tan reduced the salary of his production workers to $1,000 a month and
abolished the retirement gratuity scheme.

Singapore goes Cosmopolitan, but still shies from Playboy

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?
pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479581929

By John Burton in Singapore
Financial Times
Published: September 5 2003 5:00 | Last Updated: September 5 2003
5:00

Singapore yesterday said it will allow into its tightly controlled
precincts two leading symbols of western decadance - Cosmopolitan
magazine and the US television series Sex and the City.

The lifting of restrictions - which have often been cited by critics
as proof of Singapore's prudishness - is meant to help convince the
world that the city-state is ready to take its place as a
sophisticated centre for the arts.

Singapore has made culture the new focus of efforts to increase
tourism and attract talented foreigners.

Besides recently opening a world-class performing arts centre, the
Esplanade, and the Asian Civilisations Museum, Singapore has been
gradually liberalising rules on what can be put on public display.

Nudes are being shown in art galleries and plays are addressing once-
forbidden topics such as homosexuality.

But the changes proposed yesterday by the government's Censorship
Review committee appear to go only skin-deep.

More racy fare will be allowed on paid cable-TV channels and in the
cinemas under a new ratings system.

But Playboy magazine is still forbidden.

While audiences will be permitted to see Stanley Kubrick's 1999 film
Eyes Wide Shut on the movie screen, they will be unable to buy it on
video or DVD.

The rules could also encourage self-censorship among film
distributors, with the government leaving it up to them to decide
what controversial scenes to cut if they want to reach the widest
possible audience.

The CRC defended its go-slow approach by saying that Singaporeans
prefer conservative Asian values.

"The desire to safeguard the young from unsuitable content and to
respect racial and religious sensitivities is strong," it said.

Forum:    the Sintercom Forum
Subject:  Letter to ST forum. (Almost)
From:     HyperSlutHunter (NEedAJob) (HYPERSLUT69)
To:       (ALL)
DateTime: 8/28/2003 10:25:10 AM

I wanted to write this in ST forum. But then realised must put name, address
and IC number.

---------------------------------------------------------

I am not convinced that these recent CPF cuts will help turn around Singapore's
economy.  We always boast of being first-class in terms of living standard, but
we are going a few steps backward, moving to 2nd or even 3rd world pay. If wage
costs had been the reason, then the Government should do something to lower the
standard of living before even suggesting these cuts.

With the GST inevitably increasing to 5%, it would be great if
the government would lower or cut altogether the property taxes, road taxes,
petrol duties as well as income taxes especially for those who earn less than
$30,000 per annum.

Being a new worker in Singapore workforce, it would take at least 10 to 12
years even before i can save enough money to have a downpayment for the
cheapest HDB flat which I then pay for the next 30 to 35 years.(based on take-
home salary of $1,400 - today's fresh graduate pay).

If the current ruling Government is indeed sincere, revert back to the years
where there is no such thing as super-scale pay for Ministers, MPs and civil
servants.

Also, if our pay should also linked to performance, in a form of monthly
variable bonus or yearly bonus, then our Government should take the first step.
Judging by the performance of how Singapore is performing, alot of civil heads
should start rolling onto the retrenchment line, majority not getting bonuses,
and all of them should get pay cuts not based on their current salary, but
based on 30% of the top salaried minister.

This would mean a total of 70% cut in the top salaried minister, and then
further cuts from the remaining. So based on $100k a month, their pay should be
$30,000 a month and further cuts should be made from there.

Total savings would mean $70k a month for the government and this would employ
at least 35 employees for every minister pay cut.

If Singaporeans must be made to take a cut in our gross pay, it is the least
the Government can do to show it is sincere. Otherwise, more and more young
Singaporeans will be simply turned off by this little red dot and simply quit
staying here.

=================================================
DelphiForums.com: Home to the Web's most vibrant
online communities. Explore more than 100,000 Forums
or create your own at http://www.delphiforums.com
=================================================

CPF cuts will not help save jobs, say most bosses
90% not likely to raise headcount anytime soon: survey

By GENEVIEVE CUA

(SINGAPORE) A survey of 200 employers by Mercer Human Resource
Consulting has found that most do not believe the cut in CPF contribution rates
will help improve the job market.

Asked whether the CPF cut will help their company save jobs, 80 per
cent said no, 15 per cent said yes and the balance 5 per cent did not
answer.

Asked whether their companies are likely to raise their head count
now or in the near future, 90 per cent said no, 4 per cent said yes and 6 per
cent did not answer.

'Certainly these results are lower than one might have expected,' Mercer said
in a statement.

Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong last week announced a cut in the total
CPF contribution rate from 36 to 33 per cent, to take effect in October.
The three-point cut will be taken from the employer's share, while the
employee's share will remain at 20 per cent.

The monthly salary ceiling for contributions will also be cut - from
the current $6,000 to $5,500 in January 2004, $5,000 in 2005 and $4,500
in 2006.

The changes are aimed at making the CPF more flexible, as


CPF Cut May Still Cost Jobs
By Audrey Tan, Straits Times 29/8/03
Aug 29, 2003, 13:04

THE $1.3 billion that companies will save each year through the 3-
percentage-point Central Provident Fund (CPF) cut is equivalent to
the annual wages of 50,000 workers and will help save many jobs,
employers said yesterday.

However, outsourcing to lower-cost countries will remain a problem,
companies and economists warned.

Against that backdrop, though, the CPF cut sends a strong signal to
investors that Singapore is prepared to lower costs to help companies
stay competitive. This will make businesses feel more confident about
investing here, they added.

Indeed, at least one multinational company, Matsushita Refrigeration
Industries, said yesterday that the CPF changes would help the
company keep its manufacturing operations in Singapore.

Matsushita was considering shifting some low-end production to China,
in a move that would have resulted in some 400 to 500 jobs lost here.
The company currently employs about 1,750 people in Singapore.

But its executive director, Mr Raymond Ng, said yesterday that the
company has now decided against the shift. 'The CPF cut will help us
keep cost competitive here,' he said.

Employers yesterday came out in strong support of the cut to their
CPF contributions, although most were expecting a larger one of 6
percentage points.

The Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) and Singapore
Business Federation (SBF) said in a joint statement that they
appreciated the 'swift action' to implement the cut from October.

On top of the $1.3 billion businesses would save annually from the 3-
percentage-point CPF cut, they also stand to save around $400 million
a year from 2006, when the salary ceiling is lowered to $4,500.

Not all these savings can be converted into jobs, but the CPF cut can
immediately help to save many jobs and in the long term, increase
employment, the two organisations said.

The Singapore Manufacturers' Federation also said that the CPF
changes can help keep jobs in Singapore, especially for older workers
whose contribution rate will be lowered further over the next few
years.

'If firms can remain financially sound due to lower operating costs,
they will not think of moving their operations to other countries
where the wages are lower,' it said.

But economists and businesses warned that jobs will continue to be
shed, as companies outsource their operations to cheaper locations,
such as China and India.

Mr Jimmy Koh, an economist at United Overseas Bank, said the job
market will recover gradually only in the second half of next year
when the global economy improves.

'The magnitude of CPF cuts will never be sufficient. Outsourcing of
jobs to lower-cost countries is a global problem,' he said.

And while the CPF changes will improve the flexibility of the wage
system, they may also cut private consumption and property demand in
the short term, he added.

Nanyang Technological University labour economist Chew Soon Beng said
the 3-percentage-point cut will make little impact on closing the
wage gap between Singapore and lower-cost countries.

'From the employers' point of view, a 3-point CPF cut can help but
you have to look at other non-wage costs too,' he said.

This sentiment was echoed by most employers, who also called on the
Government to review other business costs such as property taxes,
rents and service charges.

The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry
said: 'Government fees and charges are still of particular concern to
business entities, especially the small and medium enterprises.'

However, Mr Shanker Iyer, president of the British Chamber of
Commerce, said that Singapore has sent a strong signal that it will
tackle its high wage costs.

This will reinforce the confidence British firms have in Singapore,
he added.

As for how companies will use the savings, SingTel said it may use
its annual savings of around $10 million to $13 million for staff
training and welfare, performance bonuses and re-investment
opportunities.

SNEF and SBF also said that the savings will find their way into
better bonuses and incentive payments as companies become more
profitable.

'Companies with improved performance should reward workers fairly for
their contributions,' they said.

New Paper
7 Sep 2003

MORE SEX, LESS CENSORSHIP: SO WHAT? NET-SAVVY 18-YEAR-OLDS SAY
'We've seen racier stuff on the Net

By Tan Mae Lynn

SEX and violence? So what?

New film regulations? Who cares? It doesn't affect me.

The general sentiment among net-savvy young adults The New Paper on
Sunday spoke to may not be what the Censorship Review Committee (CRC)
wants to hear.

The committee has made recommendations that could allow 18- to 20-
year-olds greater access to more movies and videos.

Currently, those in this age group miss out on catching some good
films on the big screen because the movies are rated R(A).

New-found freedom for these young adults: But are they eagerly
straining to get a taste of it?

Hardly.

The more relaxed restrictions mean little, because these experienced
surfers on the information superhighway have seen it all before and
more.

All of them admitted they have watched scenes of violence and sex far
more explicit than those in R(A) films.

Kenneth Chng, 18, said: 'Now with the Internet, you can download
stuff here, there, everywhere. There's no meaning to (the
restrictions) already.

'I don't see a point to it because if there's a will, there's a way.
We can easily find anything we want on the Net. You can even buy VCDs
easily.'

Some of the common websites mentioned included Kazaa, iMesh, and
LimeWire.

On average, the 10 young adults The New Paper on Sunday spoke to
spend about four to five hours a day on the computer chatting with
friends, surfing the Internet, or playing computer games.

NO BIG DEAL

These young adults also appear to view sex and violence as 'common'
and 'over-rated'. Such scenes in movies and pictures are, they
said, 'no big deal'.

They are so used to pop-ups appearing on their computer screens
luring them to lurid pornographic sites that they've become blase
about it, they said.

Mardiah Hussain, 18, said she regularly gets junk e-mail advertising
penis- and breast-enlargements, and has even had online messages
propositioning cybersex.

She claimed, however, to have never accepted the offers because she
has been warned by family members and peers of the dangers.

'I'm more interested in doing my own thing like chatting with friends
or surfing sites that I like, for example roxy.com,' she said.
Roxy.com is the website of popular surf brand Roxy.

Similarly, scenes of violence are not completely out of the ordinary,
with pictures and videos from the aftermath of bomb blasts often seen
on television news or in newspapers.

'At least you know in movies it's make-believe,' said Kenneth, a
first-year student at Lasalle-SIA College of the Arts.

Reynard Lim, 17, also pointed out: 'Sometimes violence is necessary
to bring out the reality of the times or era it's trying to depict.'

For example, he said, you can't really portray what it was like
during World War II without the violence.

Reynard is an avid World War II enthusiast who enjoys researching the
history and battles of the time.

Perhaps that's where he gets inspiration for his strategy when
playing Warcraft III Reign Of Chaos, a real-time strategy game can be
played with other players on the Internet.

Just by its name, it's not difficult to guess it involves violence.
One of the objectives of the game is to kill or defeat your virtual
opponents.

Despite the exposure to all the sex and violence, most of these young
adults claim to be discerning.

They said they watch films as entertainment and realise some of the
values they propagate may not be good for Singaporeans (or anyone) to
adopt.

SEEN THE SERIES

Temasek Polytechnic student Simon Yap, 19, has already seen more than
is officially allowed for people his age.

For example, he's watched the much talked about Sex And The City,
which is officially banned in Singapore.

Simon said: 'Of course there are pros and cons for allowing (the
programme) to be shown. But it all depends on how you take it.

'That's life in America. If you go out into the world and get culture
shock, how?

'I think it's better to deal with it now rather than suffer culture
shock later, or maybe you might not be able to deal with it at all.
Isn't that worse?' he added.

Mardiah said: 'Sex, vulgarities and violence are all around us. (The
authorities) have left us out, thinking that we can't handle it, but
by this age we're capable of telling right from wrong.

'There may be some people who choose to go the other way, but they
are a minority. And it's not that they don't know they're doing
something wrong, they just choose to ignore it.'

The bottom line is: You can restrict us all you want, but if we
really want it, we'll get it anyway.

That is the opportunity and the reality created by the Internet.

The positive thing is, these young adults also recognise the need for
rules and regulations without which, they said, there would be chaos.

What they do ask for is to be consulted, and for change to keep up
with them.

'Come on, we're in the 21st century already,' said Kenneth. 'You
can't expect us to live in the 20th century.'

'Times have changed. I mean, policemen used to wear shorts.'

He said instead of changing the film regulations every 10 years,
maybe three years would be better.

Simon agreed: 'I'm sure there are reasons for restrictions, but how
long can you keep us under the covers? Once you let loose, would you
rather it rain or flood?'

'Anyway, we are a democratic society and now we can do what we want
until they say no... that's what was in the National Day Rally
speech,' he added.

Reynard has one suggestion that may help find a balance between
preserving moral values and being more liberal with films and
media: 'Instead of stopping people from viewing some films or
programmes, maybe the authorities should concentrate on how to
discourage it.'



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Movies 18-year-olds may get to see?

IF the recommended Mature 18 (M18) rating had come sooner, our
teenagers might've had a taste of that steamy roll-in-the-haystack
between Neo and Trinity in The Matrix Reloaded.

Or perhaps the pair of copulating rats in Bad Boys 2 that earned the
film an R(A) rating because director Michael Bay refused to budge.

But no matter. They may (or may not) be watching these in their
cinemas soon:


American Wedding
The second sequel to American Pie, of which the first two were rated R
(A) here for (funny) sexual content.

Verdict: Definitely teen-friendly. It's a movie about teens and
typical pubescent issues after all.


Scary Movie 3
The first two horror genre spoofs were big on gross-out humour, which
gave Scary Movie 2 an R(A) for the not-very-tasteful sexual content.

Verdict: Possibly teen-friendly. We hear this third instalment (by
David Zucker, director of Naked Gun) isn't half as bad as what the
Wayans brothers are capable of.


Kill Bill
It would seem almost disrespectful to Quentin Tarantino (Pulp
Fiction) if his films aren't slapped with an R(A). This new outing
has Uma Thurman playing an assassin who seeks revenge on her boss who
betrays her.

Verdict: Not so teen-friendly. While age and non-exposure might've
mellowed the man, bloody violence is still his middle name.


Cabin Fever
About a flesh eating virus that inflicts a group of college kids
spending time in a cabin.

Verdict: May not be teen-friendly. It might pass for the violence and
gore, and even sexuality, but not the language and drug use.
TAN DAWN WEI

Forum:    the Sammyboy.com's Alfresco Coffee Shop Forum
Subject:  Singapore Ministers' Pay
From:      (DAPHNETAN81)
DateTime: 01/09/2003 06:01:51

The Govt said the SG workers are paid higher than US, AUS, MALAYSIA,
CHINA and INDIAN workers. Hence need to cut CPF.

Aren't SG Ministers paid many times more than US, AUS, MY, CHINESE
and INDIAN Ministers?

Using the govt's logic, shouldnt it cut SG Ministers' pay to make it
more competitive and closer to the other countries?

The below table puts things back in proper perspective:
(these are basic figures as of July 2000 and did not include last
year's  pay hikes or other benefits. Otherwise the updated numbers
may well be much larger)

1. Singapore
Prime Minister's Basic Salary US$1,100,000 (SGD1,958,000) a year
Minister's Basic: US$655,530 to US$819,124 (SGD1,166,844 to
SGD1,458,040) a year

2. United States of America
President: US$200,000
Vice President: US$181,400
Cabinet Secretaries: US$157,000

3. United Kingdom
Prime Minister: US$170,556
Ministers: US$146,299
Senior Civil Servants: US$262,438

4. Australia
Prime Minister: US$137,060
Deputy Prime Minister: US$111,439
Treasurer: US$102,682

5. Hong Kong
Chief Executive : US$416,615
Top Civil Servant: US$278,538
Financial Sec: US$315,077

Source: Asian Wall Street Journal July 10 2000

In relative terms, less then 20% of Singaporeans here have take home
salaries exceeding SGD100,000/- A YEAR.

In stark contrast, BASIC SALARY FOR A MINISTER STARTS AT
SGD1,166,844 A YEAR, OR JUST UNDER SGD100,000 A MONTH.

What these ministers earns in just ONE MONTH exceeds the ANNUAL TAKE
HOME salary of 80% of Singapore's income earning population. Lets not
even begin to compare annual packages which will exceed SGD1 million
easily.

----------------------------------------------------------


Political Issues -  MINISTERS' Salaries-Facts+Truths vs Myth
Previous | Next
    From:  QXP    01:08
To:  RAMEN3    83 of 83

   11050.83 in reply to 11050.82

Lee Kuan Yew has given all kinds of excuses and justifications for
his plunder of paying himself more than $2 million a YEAR in salaries
and also to bribe his Ministers and civil servants with million plus
or 6 figure salaries for running a economy with an annual output of
around US$85 billion since around 2000.

In contrast, yesterday Sep 6 2003 article in the Straits Times
reported that the starting pay of the President of the People's
Republic of China is only 1250 yuan/renminbi or S$265 per MONTH and
China's GDP is around US$1.2 TRILLION a year.
Just in case people reading this are interested, the penalty for
corruption in China is DEATH.

A former Vice Chairman of the National People's Congress, equivalent
to our Parliament, was sentenced to death for corruption and
currently many senior officials have been imprisoned after being
found guilty of corruption.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0,1887,208485-
1062885540,00.html?

SEPT 6, 2003
Debate On Salary Scales

China's civil servants 'don't deserve raise'

The bloated bureaucracy needs trimming - that's the consensus in a
discussion raging on the Internet

By Jason Leow
STRAITS TIMES CHINA BUREAU

BEIJING - A recent wage survey has triggered a debate on whether
civil servants should be sacked or given a raise.

Thus far, the sentiments are tilted towards ridding the bloated
bureaucracy of deadwood.

Only those who do real work deserve a pay rise, appears to be the
general consensus - and civil servants, for whom not many have a good
word, are not counted in that category.

The debate, conducted largely over the Internet, followed the
publication of a survey by Chinahr.com, a national jobs portal, in
July.

Researchers polled 40,000 people in 25 Chinese cities.
They found that civil servants received the second-lowest income
among 25 professions.

That is hardly surprising - the starting pay for China's president,
for example, is a mere 1,250 yuan (S$265) a month.

On an annual package of 24,232 yuan, the civil servant ranks only
above the teacher, who gets 21,167 yuan.

Both rank below all private sector professionals, the poll found.
The highest paid are operations and logistics executives.

They earn 61,008 yuan a year, on average.

Project managers are next, with annual packages of 54,581 yuan.
Even poorly paid public relations executives, known to work at a
punishing pace, take home an average of 44,901 yuan a year.

The central government budgeted 10 billion yuan initially to raise
civil service starting salaries on July 1.

But the Sars outbreak led to an unexpected increase in government
expenditure as funds were diverted to upgrade rural health care
systems.

Between taking care of the 'privileged poor' such as civil servants
and the 'unprivileged poor' in villages, the government shifted its
priority to the latter, said journalist Wang Yong.

He backs those who are not in favour of any pay rise for civil
servants.

Earlier reports by the Xinhua News Agency on the poverty level
throughout the country coloured the debate.

According to the reports, 210 million people live below the poverty
line, one-seventh of the population.

They receive just several billion yuan in state subsidies.
By contrast, there are 45 million civil servants drawing salaries of
a total of 1,000 billion yuan a year - more than half of the 1,900
billion yuan that the state collects in revenue.

In the past six years, only 22,000 civil servants quit their jobs,
said China International Business in this month's issue.

The bureaucracy can afford to be leaner and more efficient, it added.
'China should axe the number of people living on government revenue
rather than increase their pay,' said Mr Wang, who works for the
journal.

Others who joined the discussions on the Internet took issue with the
original proposal to increase monthly salaries for civil servants by
200 to 300 yuan in July.

Such an across-the-board hike would reward mediocre employees, they
said.

Still others pointed out that civil servants enjoyed additional
income from the 'grey economy' so their salaries were not as low as
the survey showed.

For instance, teachers who held tuition classes after work or judges
who lectured at private schools generally did not report the
additional income to the state.

'We must balance the huge amount spent on civil servants' privileges
and the 'grey revenue' in many government sectors,' said Mr Tan Gang,
a state-employed economist.

But health inspector Pan Yong felt civil servants were being unfairly
judged.

They were merely asking for equitable pay, not milking the state for
more money, as critics seemed to imply, he said.

'Many of them believe civil servants are laggards who do not deserve
a yuan more.
'But the least we do is an honest day's work.

'For that, we deserve to be paid fairly,' he said.

From: "Yadav, Dharmendra"
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 18:58:08 -0000
Subject: [singaporeforum] See L K: Student Stress & Suicides In Singapore Need
Attention

Rejected by ST Forum
Edited by Streats (edited parts in brackets)

Ed's Notes:
1. We thank See Leong Kit for his letter.
2. To discuss this, see
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sintercom&msg=1562.1

---
Student Stress & Suicides In Singapore Need Attention
by See Leong Kit
August 12, 2003

More parents and social workers must speak up fearlessly on the
unfolding problems afflicting our children --- the next generation of
Singaporeans.

If we do not bother to speak up for our children, who will?

A 2000 SPH survey revealed our primary students were more afraid of
examinations than of their parents dying. One in three also thought
life isn't worth living. A psychiatrist remarked, "That's scary. What
kind of life are we putting our kids through if they're so frightened
of exams?"

Since then, not one but seven primary pupils have committed suicide
jumping off high-rise flats. Just ponder the indescribable anguish of
their parents.

In 2001, a coroner's inquiry heard that a 10-year old pupil committed
suicide because she was stressed out with schoolwork.

In April 2002, the Straits Times reported, "Last year, about 14,000
children were seen by psychiatrists at the Institute of Mental
Health, of which 2,233 were new cases.... these figures have stayed
relatively consistent over the last five years."

The following month,  former Education Minister Teo Chee Hean's
(quick dismissive response) was, "I should point out, though, that in
the movie I Not Stupid, the student wanted to commit suicide not
because he could not cope with his schoolwork but because he could
not live up to his mother's unrealistic expectations."

Next, Minister of State (Education) Ng Eng Hen was bemused with
Singaporeans complaining so much when foreigners had highly praised
our "world class" education system.

(Politicians everywhere have no right to "demand" [such as through
draconian defamation laws] respect from the people. Like it or not,
they have to first "earn" such respect through what they say and what
they do.)

If these (million-dollar ministers) had said, "On one hand, parents
should not push their kids too hard. On the other, we will direct
ministry officials to look at comprehensive ways to make learning more
enjoyable and less stressful for our students", they would have
earned themselves much respect from taxpayers and voters alike.

Just recently, the untimely deaths of two junior college students
(were however not reported in our main newspapers.) Their schoolmates
were understandably traumatised. (Are disturbing social
issues "shameful" matters to be hushed up? Although the children of
our politicians are unlikely to commit suicide, they could also be
emotionally affected by the tragic death of a schoolmate.)

Change we must to keep up with changing times. However, are we
really "improving" the education system or still  "mucking around"
with our students as experimental guinea pigs? Are the crammed-up
changes coming too fast and furious for our students as well as
teachers to cope?

The Raffles Junior College teacher who called her student all sorts
of names and tore up his submission in front of the whole class was
clearly stressed out and in need of counselling.

The writing has been on the wall for some 10 years. In our pre-
occupation with economic success, if our (politicans, civil servants
and people) choose to turn a blind eye to such disturbing social
issues, our children will end up paying the heavy price.

Our people are our only valuable national resource. So the death of
even one student is surely one death too many and not a mere
statistic to be quickly forgotten.

Instead of "Stand up for Singapore", it is time to sing "Wake up for
Singapore"!

Comments: Mellanie Hewlitt
8 Sep 2003

These days, one has to take statements and findings reported by the Singapore
Government (and the Singapore Press) with a truckload of salt. The lines
between what constitutes objective facts, and "creative
interpretation/propaganda" are blurred.

An interview with Mr Robert Broadfoot, the founder and managing director of
Perc, a Hong Kong-based company, revealed that the conclusions of the study
were derived from only one question which was based on perception. So much for
objective professional research in Singapore.

Official census figures now confirm what is already known publicly, that
Singapore's average wage rate is well below US wages rates. Of cause this
excludes PAP Ministerial salaries and it is conceeded that perhaps if these are
factored in, it might explain how the Government reached the very unique
conclusion that our wage costs/rates are higher then those in the US and UK.

That would also imply that the original basis for the CPF cuts no longer holds
water. Does that mean the Singapore Government will reverse this policy as it
was based on erroneous and unreliable date? PAP Ministers have remained
strangely silent on this issue.

Peering deeper one also wonders if there is more to this casual statistical
oversight then meets the eye. Was it an honest mistake or a case of willfull
blindness? Or was this an act of sheer desperation from policy makers who have
are unable to come up with viable solutions for the structural problems of the
economy.

One also suspects that these days for the right price, anyone would be able to
engage a "consultancy firm" to confirm that Elvis is still alife, that Madonna
is a virgin and that Father Christmas does live in the North Pole. Afterall
this is part and parcel of the "reality" that is the "Singapore Matrix". This
would also sum up the longstanding relationship between PERC and the Singapore
Government.

In the recent months, there have been a rise in the spate of cover-ups from the
government. It seemed only last month that two local economists were taken to
task for relying on "inaccurate numbers" supplied by the Singapore Department
of Statistics in a study on Foreign Talent employment in Singapore.

We attach the latest article from TODAY for your reading pleasure.


TODAY
8 Sept 2003
False alarm
Perc's cost-of-labour findings based on perception

http://www.todayonline.com/index_home.htm

by Teo Hwee Nak
hweenak@...

ONE study almost singlehandedly stole the thunder from the debates on
CPF cuts last week.
.
When Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan cited an Asia-Pacific report that
rated Singapore as having the fourth-highest labour cost in the
region, and even more expensive than in the United States or
Australia, it raised puzzled — and, for many, angry — eyebrows among
not only the man in the street, but economists and academics as well.
.
The study was conducted by the consulting firm, Perc or Political and
Economic Risk Consultancy.
.
While Dr Tan did not point to the Perc report as the only reason for
having to tweak the CPF contribution rates, he did stress
the "profound importance" of the "simple statistic".
.
An interview with Mr Robert Broadfoot, the founder and managing
director of Perc, a Hong Kong-based company, revealed that the
conclusions of the study were derived from only one question which
was based on perception.
.
"The question was put to between 80 and 100 management-level
expatriates in Singapore on how they rate the cost of local labour in
Singapore, and how this compares with their own country. These are
purely perception grades of what they as managers have to pay their
staff across all levels and jobs," said Mr Broadfoot.
.
The question also required the expatriates to compare the labour
costs in Singapore with their country of origin. The result? The
Australian and American expatriates perceive Singapore labour to be
more costly than in their homelands.
.
How accurate is this perception?
.
The Worldwide Total Remuneration 2001/2002 study done by the global
management consulting firm, Towers Perrin, shows that Singaporean
workers — across all levels — do not cost more than those in the US.
.
According to the study, CEOs here earn US$645,740 ($1.14 million) a
year, which is a third of the US$1,932,580 annual income of an
American CEO. An accountant with about five years' experience here
earns an average of US$55,803 a year, which is also lower than the
US$68,700 earned by an American accountant. An American manufacturing
worker costs almost three times more than one here.
.
The wage comparison between Australians and Singaporeans, however,
varies according to jobs. Management positions and professionals do
indeed cost more in Singapore than Down Under, though the blue-collar
worker here is cheaper.
.
In fact, a check on the US Department of Labour website is enough to
debunk the "perception" of the expatriates surveyed. From managerial
positions to computer engineers to sales personnel, the average
Singaporean worker costs less than the American — sometimes as much
as 50 per cent.
.
But Perc's Mr Broadfoot stressed the validity of his company's
findings. "More often than not, business decisions are made based
more on perception than facts. Singapore has to be careful because
it's starting to be perceived as expensive, if not more so, than US
and Australia. A single grade can be more enlightening than when you
start to go into specifics, which can get quite confusing," he said.
.
But a local labour economist dismissed the findings as "more alarmist
than anything".
.
"I would want to find out exactly which are the jobs and sectors that
we are not competitive. And the more important question is, why in
the mind of expats is Singapore considered high in labour cost?" He
also doubted that CPF contribution would have any part to play in
these perceptions.
.
Disagreeing, Mr Broadfoot said: "Singapore has a very unique
situation, whereby for every average worker, the employer has to pay
an additional 16 per cent on top of their salary. That means less
profit for your company."
.
On how the recent CPF cut, to be implemented from Oct 1, would
influence perceptions, he said he would wait till next year's study
to find out.
.
Incidentally, a survey of 200 employers conducted by Mercer Human
Resource Consulting whose findings were reported in The Business
Times, showed that many employers do not believe the three-point CPF
cut will help improve the job market. In fact, eight out of 10
companies said it would not help them save jobs. Rather, they felt it
to be an important signal to investors about boosting Singapore's
competitive edge.
Perc's cost-of-labour findings based on perception

by Teo Hwee Nak
hweenak@...

ONE study almost singlehandedly stole the thunder from the debates on
CPF cuts last week.
.
When Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan cited an Asia-Pacific report that
rated Singapore as having the fourth-highest labour cost in the
region, and even more expensive than in the United States or
Australia, it raised puzzled — and, for many, angry — eyebrows among
not only the man in the street, but economists and academics as well.
.
The study was conducted by the consulting firm, Perc or Political and
Economic Risk Consultancy.
.
While Dr Tan did not point to the Perc report as the only reason for
having to tweak the CPF contribution rates, he did stress
the "profound importance" of the "simple statistic".
.
An interview with Mr Robert Broadfoot, the founder and managing
director of Perc, a Hong Kong-based company, revealed that the
conclusions of the study were derived from only one question which
was based on perception.
.
"The question was put to between 80 and 100 management-level
expatriates in Singapore on how they rate the cost of local labour in
Singapore, and how this compares with their own country. These are
purely perception grades of what they as managers have to pay their
staff across all levels and jobs," said Mr Broadfoot.
.
The question also required the expatriates to compare the labour
costs in Singapore with their country of origin. The result? The
Australian and American expatriates perceive Singapore labour to be
more costly than in their homelands.
.
How accurate is this perception?
.
The Worldwide Total Remuneration 2001/2002 study done by the global
management consulting firm, Towers Perrin, shows that Singaporean
workers — across all levels — do not cost more than those in the US.
.
According to the study, CEOs here earn US$645,740 ($1.14 million) a
year, which is a third of the US$1,932,580 annual income of an
American CEO. An accountant with about five years' experience here
earns an average of US$55,803 a year, which is also lower than the
US$68,700 earned by an American accountant. An American manufacturing
worker costs almost three times more than one here.
.
The wage comparison between Australians and Singaporeans, however,
varies according to jobs. Management positions and professionals do
indeed cost more in Singapore than Down Under, though the blue-collar
worker here is cheaper.
.
In fact, a check on the US Department of Labour website is enough to
debunk the "perception" of the expatriates surveyed. From managerial
positions to computer engineers to sales personnel, the average
Singaporean worker costs less than the American — sometimes as much
as 50 per cent.
.
But Perc's Mr Broadfoot stressed the validity of his company's
findings. "More often than not, business decisions are made based
more on perception than facts. Singapore has to be careful because
it's starting to be perceived as expensive, if not more so, than US
and Australia. A single grade can be more enlightening than when you
start to go into specifics, which can get quite confusing," he said.
.
But a local labour economist dismissed the findings as "more alarmist
than anything".
.
"I would want to find out exactly which are the jobs and sectors that
we are not competitive. And the more important question is, why in
the mind of expats is Singapore considered high in labour cost?" He
also doubted that CPF contribution would have any part to play in
these perceptions.
.
Disagreeing, Mr Broadfoot said: "Singapore has a very unique
situation, whereby for every average worker, the employer has to pay
an additional 16 per cent on top of their salary. That means less
profit for your company."
.
On how the recent CPF cut, to be implemented from Oct 1, would
influence perceptions, he said he would wait till next year's study
to find out.
.
Incidentally, a survey of 200 employers conducted by Mercer Human
Resource Consulting whose findings were reported in The Business
Times, showed that many employers do not believe the three-point CPF
cut will help improve the job market. In fact, eight out of 10
companies said it would not help them save jobs. Rather, they felt it
to be an important signal to investors about boosting Singapore's
competitive edge. Perc's cost-of-labour findings based on perception

by Teo Hwee Nak
hweenak@...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:   Sg_review@yahoogroups.com
Date:  Sun Aug 31, 2003  8:10 am
Subject:  Data Shows US wage Higher - PERC reliability in question

Comments: Mellanie Hewlitt
31 August 2003

Below are two articles which touch on the questionable methodology and data
used by the PAP.

We also attach (in the second artcile) actual census data from the US and
Singapore which actually confirm that Singapore wages are lower then those in
the US.

Full Marx for Singapore's working class.

By Jake van der Kamp jakeva@s...
29 August 2003
South China Morning Post
(c) 2003 South China Morning Post Publishers Limited, Hong Kong. All
rights reserved.

AND HERE IS the latest gem from Singapore, straight from the front
page in this diehard bastion of central planning of the leading
English language newspaper, Pravda (Party Rendition and Authorised
Version of Daily Announcements).

Apparently the Singapore government is worried wages have gone too
high and some corrective action must be taken to bring them down.

That finding results in part from what some people in New York told
Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan on a visit there (this counts for
detailed policy research in Singapore) and partly from a recent wage
survey by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (Perc), which
rated labour costs in Singapore as higher than those in the United
States or Australia.

Perc's methodology in this survey was to ask expatriates what they
thought of labour costs in different countries, another example of
the sort of detailed policy research that has little time for hard
statistics. The figures from both countries on employee earnings say
that average wages are at least 25 per cent greater in the US than in
Singapore and this is after taking the highest Singapore numbers I
could find.

For the flavour of what you get when basing a labour cost study on
expatriate opinion, notice from the table that Perc rates labour
costs in Vietnam higher than in Thailand. For a good laugh tell that
to people in Hanoi or Bangkok.

You may also wish to note that Singapore's gross domestic product per
capita is 25 times greater than Indonesia's while Perc says its
average labour costs are only 1.6 times as great. This sort of
disparity with neighbouring countries is common and suggests that
Singapore workers are underpaid for their level of productivity.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good scare story. The
Singapore government subscribes to the story and has come up with a
way to cut labour costs - cut back contributions to the Central
Provident Fund (CPF) from their present level of 36 per cent of
employee earnings. This does not mean, by the way, employees will
instead get this money. It is their employers who will.

Now if the Hong Kong government were to cut Mandatory Provident Fund
contributions in Hong Kong most people probably would applaud. It is
dead money anyway. Given the derisory rates of return that the CPF
gives Singaporeans, you would think they might share that sentiment.

But Singaporeans do not have to wait until retirement to get their
CPF money. They can use their contributions to pay for their homes
and other approved investments. Many of them are thus unhappy with
the proposed cut. In mortgage payments they will have to make up from
their direct income what previously they got from the CPF. It is all
rather highhanded and will hurt them.

And who will benefit? To answer this question you must first
appreciate two crucial differences between Singapore and Hong Kong.
The first is courtesy of the usual central planner's obsession with
making things, Singapore still has 25 per cent of its economy tied up
in manufacturing while the figure in Hong Kong is less than 5 per
cent.

The second is that 75 per cent of investment in manufacturing in
Singapore is foreign investment whereas that figure in Hong Kong is
negligible. What will happen in Singapore is foreign employers will
take what native Singaporean workers lose through this cut.

There will be a transfer of wealth from the people who worked for it
to the multinational corporations (MNCs). This could be excusable if
these MNCs then invested the money back in Singapore but the
difficulty is capital investment in Singapore is dropping faster than
a rock in freefall and has never been lower than it is now, relative
to the size of the economy. The MNCs are mostly in exit mode now.
They will not put the money back into Singapore. They will just take
it home with them.

Then you get to that fuzzy thinking that labour costs are an
obstruction to economic performance. If so, Mr Tan, may I ask you
what is the point of economic effort? Is it not to improve the
prosperity of those who participate? What sort of an achievement is
it if you instead make them poorer?

I have always maintained that Singapore is the one country to have
come closest to achieving communism in the classic Marxist sense.
This is now unfortunately also showing the classic result of central
planning put in practice, a steady grinding down of working class
disposable income.

--- End forwarded message ----------------------------------

From: apson lim <apsonlim@...>
Date: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:53 am
Subject: Our labour costs higher than US? Who's kidding who?
27 Aug 03

Here's some corroborating data from the Singapore Ministry of Manpower and the
US Department of Labor.

The occupational groups used in both studies aren't identical but they are
similar enough to give one a pretty good idea of the general picture.

2002 Monthly Wage by Occupational Group (SGP)
http://www.mom.gov.sg/MOM/MRSD/Others/2002W_OWSfindings.pdf

1. Managers -- S$5,856
2. Professionals -- S$3,798
3. Technicians & Associate Professionals -- S$2,655
4. Clerical Workers -- S$1,818
5. Service & Sales Workers -- S$1,650
6. Production Craftsmen -- S$2,000
7. Plant & Machine Operators -- S$1,680
8. Cleaners & Labourers -- S$1,171

2002 Monthly Wage by Occupational Group (USA)
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncbl0539.pdf

1. Executive, administrative, and managerial -- S$9109
2&3. Professional specialty and technical -- S$7170
4. Administrative support -- S$3567
5. Service occupations -- S$2383
5. Sales -- S$3455
6. Precision production, craft, and repair -- S$5267
7. Machine operators, assemblers, inspectors -- S$3706
7. Transportation and material moving -- S$3905
8. Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers -- S$2857

Source
======
REPORT ON WAGES IN SINGAPORE, 2002
http://www.mom.gov.sg/MOM/MRSD/Others/2002W_OWSfindings.pdf
by: Manpower and Statistics Department, Ministry of Manpower, Singapore
dated: 30 June 2003
Table 9
=======
Managers -- S$5,856
Professionals -- S$3,798
Technicians & Associate Professionals -- S$2,655
Clerical Workers -- S$1,818
Service & Sales Workers -- S$1,650
Production Craftsmen -- S$2,000
Plant & Machine Operators -- S$1,680
Cleaners & Labourers -- S$1,171

Glossary
========
Professionals -- Semi­conductor engineer; System designer & analyst; Civil
engineer; Accountant; Mechanical engineer, Auditor (Accounting); Electronics
engineer; Quantity surveyor; Software engineer; Network, systems and database
administrator

Technicians and Associate Professionals -- Road transport service supervisor;
Buyer; Personnel/Human resource officer; Draughtsman; Sales representative
(Technical); Quantity surveying technician; Assistant accountant; Assistant
nurse; Management executive; Pre­primary education teacher

Clerical Workers -- Material planning clerk; Billing clerk; Shipping clerk;
Telephone operator; Personnel/Human resource clerk; Data entry operator;
Secretary; Medical/Dental receptionist; Insurance/Underwriting clerk; Cashier

Service and Sales Workers -- Hawker/Stall holder; Waiter; Cook; Captain/Waiter
supervisor (Restaurant); Private security guard; Shop sales assistant; Sales
supervisor; Housekeeper (Hotels and other establishments); Bartender

Production Craftsmen and Related Workers -- Electronics fitter; Supervisor and
general foreman (Building trades); Industrial and office machinery mechanic;
Electrician; Motor vehicle mechanic; Sheet metal worker

Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers -- Petroleum and natural gas
refining plant operator; Pharmaceutical and toiletry products machine operator;
Machine supervisor and general foreman; Plastic product machine operator; Bus
driver; Electrical/Electronics products quality checker and tester; Van driver;
Trailer­truck driver; Driving instructor and tester; Electronic
equipment/component assembler

Cleaners, Labourers and Related Workers -- Cargo Handlers/loaders; Godown
labourer; Store hand; Car park attendant; Lorry attendant; Manufacturing
labourer and related worker; Aircraft loader; Office cleaner; Kitchen
assistant; Construction labourer and related worker


Source
======
NATIONAL COMPENSATION SURVEY: OCCUPATIONAL WAGES IN THE UNITED STATES,
JULY 2002
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncbl0539.pdf
by: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor
dated: June 2003
Table 1
=======
Professional specialty and technical -- S$7170 per month
[US$27.18 perhour; 36.1 hours per week]

Executive, administrative, and managerial -- S$9109 per month
[US$31.16 per hour; 40.0 hours per week]

Sales -- S$3455 per month
[US$14.50 per hour; 32.6 hours per week]

Administrative support -- S$3567 per month
[US$13.41 per hour; 36.4 hours per week]

Precision production, craft, and repair -- S$5267 per month
[US$18.20 per hour; 39.6 hours per week]

Machine operators, assemblers, inspectors -- S$3706 per month
[US$12.94 per hour; 39.2 hours per week]

Transportation and material moving -- S$3905 per month
[US$14.25 per hour; 37.5 hours per week]

Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers -- S$2857 per month
[US$10.98 per hour; 35.6 hours per week]

Service occupations -- S$2383 per month
[US$10.32 per hour; 31.6 hours per week]

1 month = 4.2 weeks; US$1 = S$1.74

Glossary
========
Too many professions to list here. Refer to the report.

Anyone who knows anything about the US wouldn't believe that the wages paid in
Singapore could possibly be higher than the wages paid in the US. This is also
consistent with the official data from both countries provided earlier.

So how could PERC have arrived at a different conclusion, assuming that they
did an honest investigation?

Clearly the difference must come from those jobs in Singapore that pay higher
wages than their counterparts in the US. As you can guess, there aren't too
many such jobs. I can think of two.

The first group comprise the high-ranking civil servants and public office
holders in Singapore. Federal and State employees in the US, even the
high-ranking ones, are among the most poorly paid people in the country. In
Singapore, it's the other way round.

The second group comprise foreign talents who have been paid large premiums by
various agencies in Singapore to relocate here. The well-known argument is: if
we don't pay a competitive salary over and above what these foreign talents are
receiving back at home, they wouldn't want to move to Singapore. And so we
created jobs for them in Singapore that pay more than their counterparts in the
US.

Apparently there are now so many of these jobs to an extent that the labour
cost balance is tipped in favor of the US despite the fact that most
Singaporeans still hold wages that fall far behind Americans with similar jobs.


From : PUISPIT
Sammyboy Alfresco Coffee Shop
Date : 27 Aug 03

Here are two links which detail the salaries of workers in two different
sectors in the US:
1) For median income in the manufacturing sector in the US in 2002:

http://www.abbott-langer.com/mfgsumm.html

The survey showed that on an annual basis, janitors are paid US$21,481
(S$38,000); machinists are paid US$27,643 (S$48,000); production supervisor are
paid US$45,206 (S$79,000). And etc.

2) For average starting salaries of administrative support staff in the US in
2003:

http://www.iaap-hq.org/ResearchTrends/Salaries2003.htm

Just check it out and come to your own conclusions.

We must not forget that on top of basic pay, commissions, bonuses and overtime
paid to US workers, US employers also need to contribute to the State and/or
Federal governments:

Social security and medicare (equivalent to our CPF)
Unemployment insurance
Employment training tax
Worker compensation insurance

Not forgetting the very high cost of medical insurance (anything from US$200 –
US$1000 per worker per month!!) borne by employers as part of the compensation
package.

All these additional contributions further increase the burden of hiring in the
US.

With so much data readily available, it doesn’t take much effort to verify
labour costs in most major cities in the world. Who are the MIW trying to fool?
It is irksome that in this internet age, the MIW persist in presuming that they
can continue to get away with their specious arguments.

A simple google search on the MIW’s favourite source, PERC, will quickly reveal
that:

1) little can be found about the consultancy firm or its reports
2) no one else quotes PERC’s reports as gospel truth the way the MIW do

Why?

Go check out PERC’s bare and unprofessional looking website (www.asiarisk.com)
and you’ll understand. Here’s some background info on its founder and MD:

[[Robert Broadfoot is the founder and Managing Director of Political & Economic
Risk Consultancy, Ltd. A US citizen, Mr. Broadfoot graduated with honors in
economics from OBERLIN COLLEGE in the United States in 1972. He has lived in
Hong Kong since 1975. Beside coordinating PERC s overall operations, Mr.
Broadfoot is directly responsible for managing PERC s research and consulting
involving mainland China and the Greater China region.]]

Economists and analysts I know described PERC as a tiny outfit whose reports
are sources they wouldn’t deign to quote.


From : PENGSAN
Sammyboy Alfresco Coffee Shop
Date : 28 Aug 03

I draw 1700 dollars a month with no increment for the last 3 years. My mum
draws 500 dollars a month. We have long working hours, and rarely get to see
each other. After CPF 20% cut, we can barely make it through the end of the
month.

Yet we have a rude shock when we both found out we are the third highest paid
in the world. Our PAP Goverment has just told us that we draw higher salaries
than even Australia and USA! Our unemployment problem is due to the Singapore
Citizen's fault. Our Salaries are just too high.

Well, just a few years ago, the PAP goverment say they were going to resume CPF
to 40%. Now, the tune has changed. We are paid too high. Cut CPF. At the same
time the signal is being sent that salaries should not be paid too high.
Remember? China and India much cheaper. Yes! But does the cost of a car or a
house the same as the cost in Singapore?

Our ministers and MPs are the highest paid in the whole world. They get
millions a year. Each constituency have 3 or 4 MPs. PAP is a big party.
Singapore is very small island! Do we need so many MPs? So many civil servants
are redundant, overpaid and highly inefficient.

Here we have a goverment who thinks they know best and never consults the
citizen of any decision that's made. In these times of difficulties we have a
650 million Esplanade splurge. Plus:

We have a transport minister who's main pirioty isn't transport efficiency but
profits.

We have the first driverless system that cost the citizen's transport extra and
breaks down thrice since it's use.

We have a goverment who on one hand splurge on the Esplanade scrimp on HDB
upgrades. Who won't learnt after repeated mistakes of bankrupt contractors
delaying the upgrading project time and again. It is only after flare ups do
they take attention to the issue.

Have they gone so fat that they have gone thick in the head?? PAP is entirely
faultless.

I see now an increasingly bleak future for Singapore. The goverment has a death
gripe on the enterprises here and practises pseudo-deregulations and
privatisations. They have no directions. Despite top scholarly decisions made,
Singapore's economy is going down, down down. And now, to top it all, they have
resorted to pointing fingers shifting blames. The lowest of the low. Our
salaries is higher than US.

Now we can all look forward to work till the end of our lives trying to pay up
mortgage and have a absolutely zero quality of life.

I can barely survive on my own, much less talk about getting married and having
children. I guess that option is reserved for the PRs and the FTs. I am in a
country where Singaporeans and it's goverment look down on it's own Singaporean
citizens. Where they give all the key roles and development to Angmoh FTs and
PRs.

Seems to me as the day goes by that the quitters are winners and losers are
stayers.

Ask yourself today, do you want a better quality of life? Will and can
Singapore give you a better quality of life?

Make a decision today. You'll feel better after you know where to go.

For those who want a better quality of life? Make plans. The PAP has
shortchange you and make you slaves to their system till the end of your days.
Only you can change your life.

Emigrate when the time is right.

Recently, Straits Times reported that a group of mothers had stage a
march on Waterloo Street. Their campaign? To promote the benefits of
breast-feeding. The permit for that march reportedly took six months
for the authorities to approve.

Today, Straits Times and Reuters reported that a group of students
had organised a protest march along with New Paper Big Walk. Their
campaign? To protest against the killing of sharks.

Meanwhile, Chee Soon Juan spent five weeks in jail last year for
attempting to stage a rally, and JB Jeyeretnam's application for a
anti-GST march was turned down by the police this year.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SIN2578.htm

07 Sep 2003 07:32:48 GMT
"Sharks" march in Singapore against soup delicacy

SINGAPORE, Sept 7 (Reuters) - Clad in shark suits, a group of
Singapore students marched through the city state on Sunday to
protest over the mass slaughter of the big fish to make shark fin
soup, a delicacy throughout Asia.

Near the end of their trek, done as part of an annual charity event,
the university students staged a mock "finning", where a fisherman
cuts off the shark's fin and throws its body back in the sea to
drown.

"Our team of students feels that shark finning is very cruel. Because
of its high demand in Asia, the number of sharks is depleting," said
undergraduate Lim Kian Onn, who led the team of about 20 students in
the protest.

Shark fin soup is a prized dish in many parts of the region and is
widely served at Chinese weddings as a symbol of generosity and
wealth. As many as 40 sharks are killed to supply each wedding and a
bowl of the soup can cost $100.

Around 100 million sharks are caught each year for their fins, aand
the hunting has depleted some shark populations by as much as 90
percent.

Conservationists say sharks are in danger of extinction due to their
late maturity and slow reproductive rates. While killing sharks for
their fins is legal in most countries and in international waters,
the European Union, Australia and the United States have banned the
practice.


http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/news_display.php?id=201

The politics of foreigners, protests, and bikinis
26 March 2003
Young Democrats


"The government does not authorise protests and demonstrations of any
nature." So decreed Mr Wong Kan Seng, Minister of Home Affairs, on 17
February 2003.

The statement was made after the arrests of six people who had turned
up or were en route to an anti-war protest. Such blatant disregard
for a democratic right as fundamental as freedom of expression could
very well have come from the regimes in Iraq, North Korea, Burma,
Zimbabwe or China. But Singapore?

Two years ago, the prestigious Foreign Policy magazine placed
Singapore at the top of the list of most globalised nations. On the
weekend of 17 February 2003, while six million people all over the
world were out on the streets in anti-war demonstrations, six
Singaporeans who had responded to this global call for peace were
arrested by their own police force. So much for being "most
globalised".

Last week, the PAP government's love affair in suppressing its
citizens' constitutional right of free assembly took on an even more
absurd twist. On 11 March, two women demonstrated on busy Orchard
Road clad only in green bikini tops and mini-skirts. Lettuce Ladies
Holly Fraser, from Canada, and Lisa Franzetta, from America, were
campaigning for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(Peta). The Straits Times reported that "even though they had not
applied for a permit for their demonstration, they were not stopped
by the police." Singapore, you see, is one of the few countries where
it is okay to campaign for animal rights but not human ones.

A few days later, the Today newspaper reported that a woman had
planned to open her home to the public for an anti-war candle-light
vigil in response to Archbishop Desmond Tutu's call. Her plans were
thwarted by the Ministry of Defence. The reason? Her rented home is
located within the Seletar Army Camp. A Mindef spokesman told Today
that "certain activities are not allowed within that area."

And it was not mere technicality that caused her to call off the
candle-light vigil. Police spokesman, Philip Mah, referring to venues
outside army jurisdiction, said, "When you have an assembly of five
or more people in a location where the public can have access to, a
permit is required under the law." Again, we remind you that this is
not Burma, but Singapore.

What constitutes a "lawful" assembly gets more bizarre when one looks
back at the recent history of political gatherings in Singapore.
Despite Mr Wong's above declaration, a full-fledge demonstration was
approved in 1988 when the (late) then Deputy Prime Minister and union
leader Ong Teng Cheong led a 4,000 strong contingent of workers in a
protest march against American "interference" in Singapore's
politics. The Straits Times reported that the rally "featured
banners, placards and speeches galore."

Yet, earlier this year, veteran opposition politician J. B.
Jeyaretnam's application for a permit to hold a protest march against
the proposed GST hike was turned down. Despite Mr Jeyaretnam's
assurance that "no one will be carrying any sticks or shouting
anything, except perhaps the slogan 'Say No to GST'," the police
rejected his application on the grounds of maintaining "law and
order".

Then on 1 May 2002, despite having their application for a permit
rejected by the police, Singapore Democratic Party's Dr Chee Soon
Juan and Mr Gandhi Ambalam turned up outside the gates of the Istana
in preparation for a rally on labour and poverty in Singapore. Before
they could even begin, both men were bundled into a police van. Dr
Chee served a five-week jail-term for his effort.

It was not his first. In 1999, Dr Chee was imprisoned on two
occasions for speaking without a permit in the financial district.
His colleague Mr Wong Hong Toy was also imprisoned for "assisting"
him (Mr Wong was accused for turning up the volume of Dr Chee's
speaker). At least back then, the police had allowed him to finish
his speech. And we are supposed to believe the PAP's claims that
Singapore is now a more open society?

And then there is the Speakers' Corner. Barely six months after its
creation in September 2000, police called up two activists for
questioning in connection to an event organized by Think Centre and
Open Singapore Centre to commemorate International Human Rights Day
on 10 December. In a strongly worded release, the Singapore Police
Force pointed out that "it is one thing to have a group of people
gather to hear a person or persons speak; but quite another when
people come together for a specific cause, and in the process, they
chant slogans, display placards and show gesticulations, such as
clenching of fists. Police treat such actions as indicative of a
demonstration or of disorderly behaviour." Apparently, the writer of
the press release forgot about the PAP's anti-American march of 1988.

Last year, Dr Chee made history when he became the first person to be
charged for speaking at Speakers' Corner. A district judge ruled that
Dr Chee's speech urging racial and religious tolerance with regards
to the Muslim schoolgirls wearing headscarves was deemed "religious"
in nature and which fell outside the topics allowed under the
Speakers' Corner rules. Hailed as a victory for free speech in
Singapore when it first opened, Speakers Corner is now affectionately
dubbed "Speakers Cornered" by Singaporeans on the internet.

Scantily-clad lady Caucasian vegetarians are not the only foreigners
who get away scot-free in Singapore for demonstrating. On 2 March
2002, a group of Chinese nationals staged a protest outside
Parliament House. They had wanted to express their unhappiness over
the speed of investigations into a remittance scam involving their
savings. Although the riot squad was deployed to break up the
protest, no arrests were made. This is in stark contrast to the May
Day arrest of Dr Chee and Mr Ambalam.

Going by the examples above, one might be forgiven to conclude that
the Singapore Police Force does not arrest the following for staging
demonstrations: PAP-sanctioned protest marchers, disgruntled workers
from China and foreign bikini-clad activists.

On the other hand, those who would be arrested are the following:
Singaporeans on peace marches or anti-war candle-light vigils,
Singaporean opposition members who speak in public areas and
Singaporean activists staging "protests and demonstrations of any
nature".

With all the controversy over the government's pursuit of foreign
talent, there has been a buzz lately about Singaporeans becoming
second-class citizens in their own country. The more perceptive among
us will conclude that we have already been relegated from second to
third - after the PAP elite and foreign talent.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2003/09/08/200306703
0

Singaporean civic group prevents job loss related suicide

AFP
Monday, Sep 08, 2003,Page 12
A civic group that provides crisis counseling for potential suicides
in Singapore is now turning its attention to working adults who are
increasingly stressed out due to the gloomy economy.

Singaporeans aged between 20 and 49 years made up the bulk of suicide
cases from 1997 to 2001, said a spokeswoman for Samaritans of
Singapore (SOS), a 34 year-old organization staffed mostly by
volunteers.

The latest figures available from Singapore's Registry of Births and
Deaths show that almost 70 percent of suicides in 2001 were from that
age group.

They also constitute more than 65 percent of suicide attempts
referred by the police, and more than 71 percent of those referred to
SOS by hospitals.

"This is the age group where you have a lot of stress, as you are
forming your families, making financial commitments, having stress at
work, caring for the elderly and the children at home," SOS
spokeswoman Susan Lim told reproters.

With the jobless rate at about 5 percent -- more than double the
previous levels in a society used to virtually full employment -- and
personal bankruptcies also on the rise SOS has seen a surge in the
number of people calling their 24-hour hotline to seek counseling for
their financial woes.

"We don't have exact numbers, but more people are now calling in with
anxieties over retrenchment and friction in their relationships and
within families over financial stress," said Lim, who added that the
center has received an average of 124 calls daily over the past year.

SOS hosts an annual Suicide Prevention Week to help raise public
awareness on the warning signs of suicide and factors that increase
the risk of killing oneself.

This year's campaign was launched over the weekend and will be
targeted at working adults instead of the youth and elderly for the
first time since the awareness program was started in 1994.

Elderly people, aged 65 and above, previously accounted for a
disproportionately high share of suicides. Their suicide rate is now
at a 10-year low, from 40.1 per 100,000 population in 1990 to 17.8 in
2000.

SOS has launched an email "befriending service" to provide increased
accessibility through an additional channel of help to people in
distress. The non-profit organisation promises to reply to emails
within 48 hours.

It has also commissioned a play entitled Staying Alive! that depicts
a family plagued with problems, and will be conducting a workshop and
panel discussion on coping with adversity and suicide intervention
during the Suicide Prevention Week.

"We hope to draw them [20 to 49-year-olds] to the play ... it is very
real as it depicts a family where the father is retrenched and the
daughter is unemployed," Lim said. "There is a message that shows how
the resilience of the individual overcomes the problems."

The SOS was founded in 1969 and is fully funded by the Community
Chest of Singapore. The center currently employs 11 permanent staff
and has 171 volunteers from all walks of life.

Singapore man tests positive for SARS
9 Sep 2003

SINGAPORE (AP) — A man in Singapore has tested positive for SARS, the
first reported new case of the disease in four months. The
announcement Monday, came after health officials had warned the flu-
like illness could return.
The man, an ethnic Chinese Singapore citizen, tested positive for
severe acute respiratory syndrome when he tried to enter Singapore
General Hospital, Ministry of Health spokeswoman Bey Mui Leng said.
Bey said testing would be repeated to make sure the man had SARS.

Bey said officials used a test that detects the genetic material of
SARS. The test has been approved by both the World Health
Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in
Atlanta.

Singapore has been on alert against a possible second outbreak of
SARS, which killed more than 800 people and sickened 7,900 after it
was first recognized in China in November and then spread to more
than 30 other countries.

WHO spokesman Dick Thompson said he could not immediately
comment. "We've been getting information from Singapore," he
said. "But we're going to need a bit more."

The illness killed 33 people and sickened 328 in Singapore earlier
this year.

Officials are trying to track down anyone who might have come into
contact with the man and will issue them quarantine orders, Bey said.

Earlier Monday, the director general of the World Health Organization
cautioned that SARS could return and warned against complacency.

"We have to prepare on the assumption that this will come back," Lee
Jong-wook told the 54th annual conference in Manila of the WHO's
regional committee for the Western Pacific region. "Our challenge now
is to enhance surveillance networks that will detect and deal with
SARS if it does come back."

In an interview with Channel NewsAsia which aired Friday, Singapore
Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew said the city-state's health care system
is "well-prepared" for a SARS resurgence.

"The second time around, if it comes around, we should know what to
do to protect ourselves," Lee said.

The World Health Organization estimates that about 15% of people who
contract SARS die, suggesting the illness is more deadly than
influenza or other common respiratory infections. For people over 65,
the death rate is about 50%, WHO estimates.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Comments: Mellanie Hewlitt
9 Sep 2003.

We attach below comments from a reader concerning the potential benefits that
will accompany latest liberalization of the media scene in Singapore.

The reader below has used the popular P2P file sharing programme “Kazaa” as an
example. For the benefit of the general public, there are a never ending list
of P2P programmes (Morpheous, Limewire, Grokyster etc) free and available on-
line which allow surfers to swap and share files in a borderless virtual world.

Internet access has virtually rendered any attempts at censorship a meaningless
and futile task. At any one time there are an endless list of internet sources
at the disposal of internet savvy users to download films. As Singaporeans
become more exposed and in touch with the ebb and flow of the global economy,
more will shed the myopic mindset that has been part and parcel of life in a
repressed society.

Said a 29 year old chatter: “There is no TV set in my apartment and we also do
not subscribe to any local news papers. Why bother when I can download any
movie I want and watch it on PC in the privacy of my own home.”

Another former agreed: “Why bother with Channel 5 and 8 etc. All the programmes
are old and censored, no intelligent adult will watch #$@% crap like that when
more exciting unedited versions are available everywhere, not just on the net.”

Even as the conservative Censorship board in Singapore deliberate over whether
to allow Sex And The City to air, an even more liberal series, "Six Feet
Under"  which has gay and homosexual themes, is already making its way around
the internet world. Perhaps it a reflection that Singapore's censorship board
has becomed a white elephant.

Letter from; Esther Ailin
9 Sep 2003

Just a couple points to add:

1) Not everyone knows what Kazaa/file sharing
applications are or how they operate;
2) Not everyone is aware that there are 'worse' shows
out there

You, thus, will get a scenario in Singapore with these
groups of people:
Group 1: People who don't know how to use Kazaa and
don't know about programs like Six Feet under or SATC
Group 2: People who don;t know how to use Kazaa but
have heard of these shows and want to watch them
Group 3: People who know how to use Kazaa but have not
heard about these shows
Group 4: Savvy users like yourselves who know
everything.

For one thing, group 4 is a small group. Although I
belong to this group, it comes at price. For one
thing, the coined phrase "ignorance is bliss" no
longer applies to me and I am even jaded at the
thought of all that is "down and dirty" that is
offered on the Internet. Further, the 'coming out of
the closet' move by the Board of Censorship is not
there or done to benefit us, but to benefit all 4
groups in various proportions. Let me explain.

For Group 1, the opening up will allow them to 'enjoy'
the previously banned shows without the need for them
to contravene copyright laws like every other kazaa
user have done. For Group 2, they will be the main
group to be appeased as these shows are now broguht to
their doorstep. For Group 3, they will now know that
these shows exist and can choose whether to watch them
or to collect ensuing episodes from the internet. And
for group 4, we will benefit because the censorship
cuts occur 'across the board', so as to speak. Meaning
that the 'more liberal management' of our film and
celluloid will enable other artistic films to be
screened and shown as they were made and meant to be
shown. For one thing, not every show is available
online.

So, ought us not to be selfish Singaporeans and shrug
off the radical changes the Censorship Board is trying
its bestest to undertake and consider them
pointless/useless changes just because "we've seen and
done them all". Others must also have the chance to
'experience' the 'freedom' we have found, oui?

Fondly,
Ez

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

This message was forwarded to you from Straits Times Interactive
(http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg) by sg_review@yahoogroups.com

Comments from sender:HUANG XIAOCHUN
In P1 but creativity already stifled
ONE evening, my daughter, a Primary 1 pupil, showed me her homework and
cried: 'What did you teach me?'

Her assignment was to 'look at the pictures and fill in the blanks with the
correct words'. Three of her 10 answers were marked with red crosses. I was
upset when I first saw the homework but, when I calmed down, I became deeply
worried.

Using the questions, I did a small survey of eight people who might be
considered to be highly educated. One was a Secondary 4 student from a
reputable secondary school, another was a third-year undergraduate at the
National University of Singapore, and the rest were engineers with two to 20
years' of work experience.

The engineers were from various countries including Malaysia, India, China and
Singapore.

Surprisingly, none of them got a perfect score. The two best scorers answered
nine out of the 10 questions correctly, a bit better than my daughter did. Some
fared worse.

The questions were straightforward so what had gone wrong? The answer: the
teacher's mindset.

To the teacher, there could be only one answer to each question. This reflects
the inflexibility of Singapore's education system, which emphasises rote-
learning instead of creativity.

As a parent of two children, I know that this is not an isolated case.

There have been many discussions in Parliament and in the media about
encouraging entrepreneurship. But what is really happening on the ground?

My child's creativity is being stifled even though she is only in Primary 1.
What can you expect from her after she has completed her 'education'?

Singapore can survive for now by making cuts in the Central Provident Fund
contributions.

However, in the long term, the country will cease to be competitive if the
mindset prevalent in its education system, does not change.


HUANG XIAOCHUN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

GRACE TANG SHI MIN (MS)

Grades are not everything

THE day before the second-year students at my junior college plunged into their
preliminary examinations recently, my mathematics teacher told us a true story,
which I wish to share.

  There was once a girl who graduated from a top junior college with straight
As, two S-paper distinctions and a scholarship to study at a prestigious
university in Britain.

  Unfortunately, she ran into relationship problems there, and despite her
parents' help, she committed suicide.

  The moral of the story? So much emphasis is placed on academic excellence and
co-curricular activities that students here lose focus on the most important
aspect of life: living.

  The Singaporean education system has made students here among the top in the
world for subjects such as mathematics and science, but it has failed to teach
them a far more important skill: Learning to deal with failure.

  It does not help that Singaporean society's definition of failure is anything
other than perfection.

  Many fear failure to such an extent that they sink into despondency at any
setback deemed too hard to handle.

  I am not asking the Ministry of Education to make students 'all-rounders' by
introducing subjects on stress management or the like. What we need are not new
subjects, courses or instructional materials.

  What we need are more teachers who can help us realise that grades are not
everything, and that a single failure is not the end of the world.

  I honour all those teachers who have done this.

  A belated Happy Teachers' Day.



GRACE TANG SHI MIN (MS)

Today: Are S'poreans given priority? Are 'stayers' penalised?

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/6280print.asp
Tuesday September 9, 2003

by Val Chua
val@...

JOBS. The middle-income squeeze. The plight of older workers. Foreign
talent versus Singaporeans.

The questions over these concerns thick and fast during the second
dialogue session held by the Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and his
Cabinet Ministers at Kallang Theatre yesterday for some 1,800
grassroots and community leaders.

Most questions, though not new, were pointed.

"Are we giving enough priority to Singaporeans when it comes to jobs?"
asked one grassroot leader in Mandarin. "Everywhere I look, there are
foreigners. Singaporeans have sacrificed a lot for the country, such
as national service for the men."

Permanent residents, or PRs, on the other hand, are just here to "earn
money and go home eventually," he added.

"If anything happens to Singapore, this foreign talent will leave,
leaving only Singaporeans here," he said, appealing for more
consideration for locals when filling positions.

Another grassroot leader said that foreigners with little experience
were taking jobs away, while local graduates are getting only
temporary ones.

In response, DPM Lee Hsien Loong said that one of Singapore's
attractions is in allowing foreign companies to be flexible in
employing workers.

He said that Singaporean factory workers don't want to work the night
shift. "If we say no foreigners, I don't think Singaporeans will want
to take these jobs and take the foreigners' pay."

Companies will downsize, shift away, and the net effect is fewer jobs
overall, he added.

DPM Lee admitted that the foreign talent policy was a "difficult
argument to persuade Singaporeans. But I think the government is doing
the right thing, not for the foreign workers, or companies, but for
Singaporeans," he said.

Another grassroot member expressed unhappiness over the raising of the
CPF minimum sum, to $120,000 in 10 years' time, at age 55.

He argued that "stayers" of the Singapore system shouldn't be
penalised with their "hard-earned money locked up" in their pension
scheme.

PM Goh, who chaired the two-and-a-half hour session, said that the
blanket rule is necessary because, even though most Singaporeans can
look after themselves post-55, many cannot.

"They have itchy fingers. They have the money, and they will spend it
and then seek the MPs for more assistance," he said.

Another grassroot leader asked if the Government should give help, in
the form of subsidies, according to the household income, rather than
the type of flat. "Those who live in three to four room flats, some of
them drive Mercedes and BMWs. Those who live in bigger flats don't
even own a simple car," he said.

DPM Lee admitted that most assistance has been focused on low-income
Singaporeans.

Still, high-income earners would have "benefited considerably" from
income tax cuts last year, he said. "It's not fair to say that they
were forgotten."

However, he admitted that car taxes are "quite heavy" and would be
brought down so that they are not a burden to this group of
Singaporeans.

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved

The twenties is a time in your life that is usually filled with
optimism and elation. The world is your oyster, you slogged through
Uni and have just commenced work with marriage to the significant
other just round the corner.

Not so in Singapore where being 20-something is no joy at all. Small wonder
that many are departing this highly represive city state.

They've had a bumpy ride - two recessions before they turned 30. ANGELINE SONG
reports on a situation many Singaporeans in their late 20s are facing today -
and gets experts' advice.

The New Paper
10 Sep 2003
By Angeline Song

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/story/0,4136,35291,00.html?

JOBS were scarce when Mr Roger Ng entered the job market in 1998.

Even armed with a business degree majoring in property, 'I couldn't
find a job for six months,' he recalled.

Mr Ng, now 29, grabbed the first job he could, even though he thought
the salary - at slightly over $1,000 a month - was low.

One year later, as the economy picked up, he landed a job as a
property analyst with Land Lease Real Estate Investment, an
Australian multinational.

The pay was better - over $2,000 a month.

Confident that things were on track, he and long-time sweetheart
Mavis, 29, also a business-property graduate, applied for a five-room
HDB flat in Sembawang that year. They got married in 2000, got their
keys in early 2001 and moved in in May 2001.

Then the 911 disaster struck - and the property market crashed.

Mr Ng's company decided to shift all its operations to North Asia -
and he was retrenched.

His immediate worry was the mortgage payments on his new flat.

He called the HDB and found out, to his relief, that he had enough
money in his CPF to continue paying his $200 share of the $400 monthy
instalment on his 30-year loan. The flat cost about $238,000.

His wife, who had started work in a property development firm six
months ago, paid another $200 a month with her CPF.

The loan on their second-hand 1995 Toyota Corolla, which they bought
in 1999 and cost over $30,000, had also almost been paid off. (They
had paid about $900 each month on its loan.)

300 JOB APPLICATIONS

For the next six months, Mr Ng spent his time doing housework - and
sending out 300 job applications.

'Every day, I would go to my parents' house to use my brother's
computer to send out applications through the Internet and also by
post.

'It's not a good feeling when you wife heads off to work every day at
7am, and you're home without a job.'

Their lifestyle changed.

'For instance, my wife and I had this pact where every Friday, she
would go out with her friends for dinner and drinks and I would do
the same with mine.

'But we couldn't do it any more. Friends who knew my situation,
stopped asking me out because they knew I wouldn't be able to afford
it.'

He also put away his collection of action figures; he reckons having
spent 'a five-figure sum' over the last eight years on this hobby.

His wife and family helped pull him through.

Mrs Ng, who was then earning about $1,500 month, constantly told her
husband that she was behind him.

And his parents never nagged him.

'In fact, my father, who is a businessman, continued paying for my
insurance premium of $2,000 a year when I was unemployed.'

Mr Ng finally found a job with a logistics company.

SACKED

But four months down the road, he found he couldn't meet the sales
targets, felt stressed all the time - and was given the boot again.

But this time, he didn't mind because 'the time spent in that
unsuitable job was more stressful than my time spent at home without
a job!'

It took another six months before he found his present job as a
property officer with United Engineers.

'It's been fantastic so far,' said a clearly elated Mr Ng. 'My bosses
know exactly what they want me to do, and they give me all the
freedom to do it as I long as I bring in the results.'

He is paid around $2,500 a month, and he and his wife are slowly
getting back into their old lifestyle.

But the couple, now with a combined income of slightly over $5,000,
are not sure whether to start a family.

'You never know what might happen around the corner!' said Mr Ng.

'We would also love to go on a decent honeymoon - but that might set
us back some $10,000.'

The couple are also not sure how to plan for their retirement and for
emergencies, especially with the new CPF changes.



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ditch the car, says expert

From financial adviser Benny Ong, founding director of Life Planning
Associates:

1) Get rid of the car!

Forgo the car and you will save up to $15,000 in depreciation and
maintenance in just two years. A car like yours depreciates by $8,000
to $10,000 in one year, not to mention repairs and insurance.

If you sold it off for say, $20,000, you can save or invest that cash
in hand wisely; you will never use that much on public transport. I
have been taking public transport for 15 years; I use the BMW model:
which is Bus, MRT, Walk and tompang. Only buy a car if you can afford
to write it off.

2. Save up before investing.

Don't rush into investing until you have enough savings. For someone
who spends over $1,000 a month, you should have about $20,000 in
savings first. Start investing when ONE of you earn about $5,000
monthly, as one person can lose his job easily. You cannot determine
the outcome of your investment, but you can control your expenditure,
so try to cut down on your expenditure first. And use cash to pay,
not credit card, unless travelling.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Burdened, but can't surrender
Comment/ Tan Mae Lynn, 28

I MADE all the right moves to save up for a rainy day when I started
my career.

Or so I thought.

I entered the workforce during the Asian financial crisis in 1998.

Six months after graduation, I found a job with a small management
company and earned about $1,800 a month.

I immediately set about investing in what I thought were prudent
financial tools.

I bought an investment-linked insurance policy where I have to pay
regular premiums. I've paid about $4,000 so far.

In mid-2000, I moved on to another job which paid about $2,500 a
month, plus allowances. Just before Sep 11, 2001, I moved on to my
third job, earning about $3,500 a month.

I was able to buy a computer, take holidays at least once a year, and
eat at restaurants once a week.

Again, I did what I thought was the prudent thing.

I bought another whole-life insurance policy, which covers major
medical illnesses and also pays out to my family when I die. I've
already paid about $1,600 into this one-year-old policy.

I also bought two unit trust savings plans, with the view to saving
up for future emergencies and my retirement.

In total, I pay about $400 a month in insurance premiums and unit
trust contributions. The insurance premiums come up to about $250.

Then, 911 struck.

The company I was with went bankrupt.

I was unemployed for a year. My savings were almost wiped out. I
cancelled one of my unit trust savings plans.

Today, I work as a reporter on a temporary contract.

Now I'm feeling the burden of paying my insurance policies, but I
cannot surrender them now as I would make a huge loss.

For instance, the surrender value of my first policy now would be
about $1,800 compared to the $4,000 I have put in so far.

Luckily, I'm single and have no big payments like mortgage or a car.

I eat out at mostly at coffeeshops and take public transport, and my
monthly expenses come up to about $500.

Until I can become financially independent, marriage - and starting a
family - is out of the question.